User talk:Tvoz

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Archives
1 October 2006-May 2007 2 May-December 2007ish 3 December 2007- July 2008ish 4 July 2008- December 2008ish 5

Merry Crimbo Dear Tvoz! Love, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For good humour and excellence in editing, I present this barnstar to the multitalented and admirably coherent Tvoz. Rossrs 06:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Making a Washington Post story for your vandalism reverting skillz is worthy of a barnstar.[1] Congratulations! B 02:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		To Tvoz, on the very special occasion of an NPR program, for outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		For going above and beyond the call of duty to deal with the Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC when the nominator didn't follow up. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		If only more Wikipedians saw things with the reason and cogency in this talk page edit, this would be a far better project indeed. So what if I'm a little biased because you agreed with me twice...nice job anyway!  Frank  |  talk  00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For another multi-year veteran of the 2008 candidates biographical articles and always-relevant music articles, for continuing to maintain a roaring presence. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

---

You're famous! [Washington Post article September 2007]

ZOMG!! I'm not worthy! You totally made it into The Washington Post. Too bad it is only for removing a picture of a naked black men from Obama's article. Heh. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tina! Saw the post article. --Pleasantville 12:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (aka Kathryn Cramer)

Pretty awesome Tvoz! R. Baley 03:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there you are in the Washington Post, fighting the good fight. Carry on, Tvoz :) · jersyko talk 03:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. :) --Knulclunk 04:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Tvoz, congrats on the Wapo article! A while back I too got interviewed, in conjunction with the HRC article ... for a blog that has about 1/100000 the readership of the Post ;-) Wasted Time R 14:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I added your interview to the Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs page, Wasted. You were able to get a lot more words in there than I was! Tvoz |talk 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on the article! I talked to Jose, too, but seems that the Mitt Romney page I frequent wasn't interesting enough or something. Maybe he just didn't like my pseudonym, or that he couldn't cast partisan motives because of it? :) Oh, and you may be interested in a similar article in The Huffington Post last month. Jose said that he'd been working on his piece when the HuffPo piece came out, and had to delay his article due to it. Pro crast in a tor 07:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I added that article to the Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs page. Tvoz |talk 23:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we have the URL. please? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Jossi - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699_2.html

Thanks everyone! Just doin' my part to make you all look good....Tvoz |talk 23:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job [NPR interview, April 2008]

I just heard the NPR interview. You did a great job representing the project, and explaining Wikipedia's arcane processes to a lay audience. I'm surprised that they didn't go into the question of your personal views about the candidates — but now you've got a reliable source saying that your edits are "not for political purposes, but just to do the right thing". Do you suppose this will change Andy's mind? ;^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought it came off well too. They asked in the pre-interview whom I voted for and I told them I wasn't going to tell them, so I guess they decided not to try. As for Andy, well.... I doubt it. Other than the fact that I had to get up at 7:30, it was fun. Tvoz |talk 21:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It was the most Wikipedia-friendly news coverage that the 2008 presidential candidate articles have seen yet, and you represented the project really well. Thank you! --HailFire (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Tvoz |talk 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from a stranger lucky to hear you today. Beautiful job, you did Wikipedia proud. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow - thank you Susan! Nice to meet you. Tvoz |talk 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Link to NPR program

CNN [quoted, February 2012]

Link to CNN quoting me about Gingrich campaign's Wikipedia editing

You have some more media mentions to add to the top of your userpage. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I just saw it. You can tell that the political silly season is underway! Tvoz/talk 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

To start a new thread, please click here.

Thank you T Voz

Thank you, T. Voz., .... for all the (uncompensated!) time you put into making Wikipedia the incredibly useful resource that it is. .... Deacon John. DeaconJohnFairfax (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee... thank you, Deacon - nice of you to say so. I'm curious - any place in particular that you've encountered my work? Tvoz/talk 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see...

...that you're awake at this hour! Hmmm, guess I'll take a listen to your NPR interview... Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A she?

I canz notz believzing it!!11111!111!!one1!11!11eleven11!!1!!11111

Now I know why you've such a POV about you that nobody can figure out ;-D

Happy editing none the less. Digital^Ninja 21:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I really that mysterious? Cool! Tvoz/talk 23:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

She...

If there are any other editors on Wikipedia that can give advice as Tvoz does, about turbulent subjects in a such a well-reasoned, intelligent, and clear way, I would like to know who they are. They (if there are more) should form The Good Club, and charge admission for their worthy advice. Respect is due. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Aw. Thank you. And I definitely like the idea of charging admission. Tvoz/talk 22:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

RINGO

• The Beatles did not become the Beatles until Ringo joined them
• Think about it: George was an amazing lead guitarist and Paul and John each were very strong and different kings of musicians - yet everything worked, they all melded together ... I think the drummer in any band plays a major role in achieving this, s/he provides the basic rhythm against which three other people play off of, and Ringo never screwed this up
• The dramatic climax of A Hard Day's Night is when Ringo is arrested/disappears - and the band can't play! The point is, "without Ringo, they are helpless"
• The WHOLE plot of "Help" is "As long as Ringo is in danger, the whole band is in danger"
• At the same time, the band was encouraging all these "Paul is dead" rumors - and Paul was at the time the most popular Beatle. What were they saying? I think the band was making it clear: we could still make records without Paul, but we can't do anything without Ringo!"
• In terms of record sales and charts, Ringo had the most successful post-Beatle career.

He is one of Rock and Roll's greatest drummers and is overlooked in part because he devoted himself to building a rhythmic platform that let Paul and John shine, and always put professional competence over flash (Max Weinberg of the E-Street Band is similar in this) I think every Beatle was a great musician, but it was Ringo that made then "th Beatles" It is even in the name of the band. You know, who sets "the beat?" Slrubenstein | Talk 15:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

My readers can find my reply on SLR's talk ... and I bet the drummers among you might not agree, but hope you'll forgive me. Andrew, you know I mean you... Tvoz/talk 21:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, nothing I wrote was meant to in any way diminish the greatness of one of rock's greatest lead guitarist, and arguable rock's best rhythm guitarist and best bass guitarist. But if one has to pick a favorite, it is still Ringo, and I was just explaining why.

Now, "The Inner Light" is in my opinion an absolute work of art, one of the finest hours ever broadcast on television and up there with many great films. For what it is worth, I think "Tapestry," "Parallels," "Cause and Effect," "Yesterday's Enterprise," "I, Borg," and "The Most Toys" are better than any original ST show (yes, with the probable exception of "City on the Edge of Forever," and "The Naked Time" a close second). I mean it, I think those episodes demonstrate just how great science fiction, and television, can be. But that just means Picard was given a better episode than Kirk. I still favor Kirk as captain. While I like Patrick Stewart a great deal, I frankly share Q's general view of Picard as pompous and humorlessly pretentious (Picard's brother's view of him too, as I recall). I must admit too that for a variety of reasons I do not like the prime directive, at least as it is often employed in TNG, and thus dislike Piccard when he is (as he often is) an especially pretentious mouthpiece for the prime directive. Kirk loved his ship and his crew but knew how to have fun and how to bend the rules when necessary. Piccard learned valuable lessons in "The Inner Light" and "Tapestry" and if he always displayed what he learned from those experiences I might like him a lot more. There are lots of things I like about TNG. It had a longer run and for this and other reasons more truly great episodes. But sorry, in my book, there is no substitute for Kirk, not by a long shot, and I would go even a little further and say no relationship in TNG came close to the complexity and depth of the many things that bound Kirk, Spock, and McCoy together.

I think Ochs and Dylan are a little more apples and oranges, but if you must ask (I must, I must!), then, Dylan (caveat: Ochs was better specifically at protest songs).Slrubenstein | Talk 22:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah - well, on song-writing, I would just say Ringo is not even in the running (although he contributed some great lines). He is my favorite Beatle, but certainly not my favorite song-writer, by any means. As for his post-Beatle career, I can't honestly answer your question, it is something i read somewhere. But it was based on either record sales or highest rank in the charts. The stats may have changed since I last checked which was at least ten years ago. Lennon's "Imagine" became an anthem for a generation but when it was first released it actually didn't chart well. Personally, Double Fantasy is the only post-Baetles Lennon work I really like, but thinking about all that makes me very sad... I am glad we are close on TNG episodes - if only I could get DVDs of just those episodes ... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

...and, really, BeeGees? And not Peter Frampton? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Hi, I've posed a couple questions to two of your posts in the article talk page. I'm was hoping you might find a moment to answer them (in the talk page). Thanks. Jbarta (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your answer with another question. I know, I can be annoying and need a hobby really really bad, but I hope you'll indulge me in an effort to put your feet to the fire. Jbarta (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested, I commented on your recent response where you state you don't wish to legitimize this garbage. Jbarta (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Indent

Why do you indent so much when you post?

Instead

of this

in the normal fashion

you do this and screw up the natural ordered flow of the universe.

Jbarta (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I do that if I'm inserting a response to a post that has already been followed by other posts, if you must know. Or sometimes I'm in a hurry and don;t take the time to count the colons. As for the natural flow of the universe, I have faith in equilibrium and stasis. Tvoz/talk 04:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Another weird link

Hi Tvoz, for some reason, Dan Vickrey has a redirect to the Counting Crows band page. Can you remove it, so I can start a REAL individual page for him? So weird, I don't see the link at the top of the page, but when I click his name under "members" in the infobox, I get a screen that looks identical with his name in the top left corner as a redirect! [2] If you would help, I'll be indebted once again. --leahtwosaints (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops.. another thing. Dan Vickrey's photo, which is in the info box is spelled wrong: Dan Vickery. Any way to fix that? --leahtwosaints (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Trolling

I just want to know about your reason to remove my question on Barack Obama discussion page. I guess i didn't a trolling case since i read the policy on here. C H J L ^Discuss 02:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i can understand. But if the rumor is true or i've found the external sources, shall we put in to the article? It is part of article improving. C H J L ^Discuss 04:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Black president

I have rewritten this article and fully cited it. I hope you can read over it and share your thoughts. • Freechild'sup? 16:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

President Obama

I wonder how many people out there, question Obama's legitmacy as President, because they believed he didn't swear the oath correctly? GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they are lining up. But, he took the oath again, which I hope will shut them up. However, there is no depth below which some people won't go. And all too many of them edit here. Tvoz/talk 01:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Caroline, no

This NY Post report also has her dropping out, but contradicts the NYT report in that this says she wasn't going to be picked by Paterson, while Times said she was. We will indeed have to wait and see what really happened. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Now the NYT is saying "In a dramatic and confusing turn of events, Caroline Kennedy informed Gov. David A. Paterson on Wednesday that she would withdraw from consideration for the vacant Senate seat in New York, only to hours later signal that she may be interested in the seat after all." What a fiasco.

I saw Brian Wilson in concert a few years ago when he was doing Pet Sounds in its entirety, with a large band doing faithful arrangements. His voice was mostly gone and his stage manner was stiff and awkward, but just to see him up and functioning and in front of people again was very close to a miracle. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve Adams

Ring a bell? Not really? It's because, yes, it's interesting that for a few months.. maybe a year in his adolescence, Cat Stevens was searching for a stage name. However, the name didn't stick. Just like his use of that Stevie Ray Vaughn Fender Telecaster isn't something that clicks in people's head and connects to him. I'll give you that. So, this time, please give this one to me. I went with the removal of any "notable instruments", even when referenced-- to be removed from the infobox. Please. Let us agree to keep Steve Adams IN the infobox but take the references of of the box since it is referenced early in the text, and really is fairly trivial. Please, Tvoz, we have agreed to do quite a few things on the article your way. It appears ugly, and of the few FA and GA articles to reference something there it's so minor. I'm easy to get along with I think. Please, remove the infobox referencing.--leahtwosaints (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You really need to relax, Leah. Infoboxes have refs in them all the time, including FAs - see Barack Obama, as but one example. I put the refs in precisely because the alias is not well known and people might question it - but not being well-known is not a reason to remove the name, in fact it's a reason to include it. I don't have a big problem with removing the refs from the infobox since they're in the text, as long as that doesn't lead to removing the name too - but I think your logic is off. The point about the notable instruments was not a matter of doing it "my way" - all I did was note how the field is intended to be used in that infobox template, and there were other editor(s) who repeatedly removed the Fender saying the name itself was wrong and he's not known for it. ("Notable instruments" is defined as special instruments the artist is closely associated with, not merely well-known instruments.) This isn't a contest, and I don't have a "way" - just my understanding of policy, guidelines, and precedent, as well as my sense of what looks good and reads well. Take it easy - you're over-reacting here. Tvoz/talk 03:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do have a lot of personal medical issues, and am stressed out. (sorry bout that part) But that was one thing that had just bugged me for a while. It seems to me that what I think are the best articles have infoboxes to get the basic biographical facts, and the introductions are best to identify notable accomplishments (or sometimes the lack thereof) one of the reasons I feel it's best when possible to avoid too many references in those areas unless you can't get around it. After looking over those parts, and (hopefully) a good photograph, then if a biography is written well, or the reader is interested enough, they'll read the whole article. Anyway, thanks. I despise edit wars or even the hint of them, and unless someone was just WAY WRONG, wouldn't think of reverting. Talking about stuff works so much better. --leahtwosaints (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't see why you think a little superscript number in an infobox in any way detracts from its informative powers - when you look at the actual article (not the edit screen) there's just nothing that takes away from the facts. But I don't think it matters much, as long as the info stays in place. Sorry you're not well - hope things improve. And hope you can get some photos from the sources you mentioned a while back. Tvoz/talk 05:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Search box mysteries

You know, I'm stumped. It's the same code, but its like the search isn't picking up here. I asked on WP:AN here, maybe the new native search doesn't do User talk (which sucks but there's probably a technical reason). rootology (C)(T) 05:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for trying - I'll take a look over there but code isn't my strong suit so I may cry for help.... Tvoz/talk 05:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not us that I can tell. I think it's something internal or back-office, but I could be wrong. rootology (C)(T) 05:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Bobblehead fixed it.[3] :) rootology (C)(T) 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you guys! Tvoz/talk 06:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool Cat Stevens downloads hidden!

Sis, Here's one of the hidden downloads in the labyrinth of a fansite for Cat Stevens- two performances of Cat and Alun in 1971 on the Old Grey Whistle Test- "If I Laugh", and "Changes IV"-[4] There's a great bunch of audios and stuff in here too.. like [5] Longerboats audio in Granada TV 03 but it's messed up I *think* [Right now I'm listening to an audio of Alun and Cat singing Father and Son (audio).. there's a lot of tour stuff here, but I'm looking through the articles that are, too, if you click the hidden links, and WOW, he gets so many encores... anyway, I'm looking for them, they have a lot of info for the song pages, album pages. If you like, I can try to save you any really great links. I know Patti D'Arbanville said Steven liked puzzles. Wonder since he owns this whole site now with the puzzles and whatnot, if he hid this stuff on purpose for fun? Sometime tomorrow, I should run into the audio of Stevens and Elton John singing "Honeyman" together, and hopefully, a review of it.--leahtwosaints (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooh -thanks! Probably not ok to include in the article, but I'm looking forward to listening myself! My daughter's a big fan too - of course - I'll tell her to check them out. Tvoz/talk 00:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK! Here's the entire audio Foreigner: [6] and "Later" from 1974: [7] Majic of Magics and O' Caritas! [8] And here is "I Love My Dog"! [9]

Phil Ochs

Hi. How are you doing?

As you may have noticed, I'm trying to clean up the article and add sources. I'd like to get it up to Good Article status.

Is there any reason why we shouldn't mention Phil's marriage to Alice and Meegan's birth in the section related to that period in his life? I think we can mention Meegan again in the Legacy section, just as we mention Sonny and Michael.

Let me know what you think. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barack Obama

You say the time his term ends shouldn't be on there, yet the George W. Bush article was like that for months. I don't see why that shouldn't be included. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, but not less than one week into his first term. See if it fits in the Presidency article - ask over there - it doesn't belong in the main bio at present. Tvoz/talk 04:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos of Cat Stevens and Yusuf

Hi Tvoz, We now have one confirmed photo of Cat Stevens in the infobox, and another of Yusuf Islam halfway through the article. I'm working on getting more. A lot of willing photographers find the upload confusing and aren't really trusting of us, since we make them take off the copyright symbol AND the "no commercialism" icon from their photos before we can satisfy our copyright vultures (and, believe it or not, Flickr is even more strict if that's even possible. But these two are nice for starters. If you know anybody in Wikimedia, getting some audio clips would be OUTstanding! Otherwise I'll try to get the one person I know to help with that after we do the album and song pages, if needed. --leahtwosaints (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Gillibrand

I think it's splitting hairs to say that though Sen. Gillibrand was an intern for Sen. D'Amato AND he showed up at her side upon her appointment, we don't want to by chance imply he's a political supporter of hers while reporting the simple fact.

So you don't want to report the fact? Would you have liked it any better if I'd added that she had been his intern? It's over in her article, so I didn't repeat it.

I'm curious.Swliv (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to use this?

Tvoz- here's a great long discussion about Cat Stevens songwriting, and I wonder if there's a best way to use it to improve the article. [10] What do you think? --leahtwosaints (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't really see anything to take from it that we don't already have (I'm just seeing three paragraphs - is there more?). I think we already have a lot of stuff that are his own take on his work - which I enjoy reading, but think maybe we should be balancing with more of what other people wrote about his work. Reviewers, more in-depth articles if there are any, rather than his own self-promo stuff, you know? Tvoz/talk 18:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for African American candidates for president of the United States

On February 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article African American candidates for president of the United States, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I got a message that I had performed some edit to "Chelsea" that is considered vandalism. I don't remember making any edit anywhere that was done in bad faith or without what I felt was a bonafide reason. I've looked at the left side and right side comparison text on the link and I can't figure out what it is that I'm supposed to have done--which I'd like to know so I don't do it again. Whatever it was. I feel very bad about this, whatever it was, and probably will simply never try to correct grammar or spelling or anything else again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.250.20 (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

First, the warnings are from November 2007, so perhaps someone else was using the IP then, but here are the links to the edits that provoked the warnings: [11], [12], [13], and [14]. They appear to have been made by someone named Chelsea O., if that helps. You might consider registering for a personal named account which should prevent your being blamed for anyone else's edits. If these edits were in fact yours, just understand that this isn't a game - we're trying to build an encyclopedia and no one has the time to clean up after jokes. But we're a forgiving bunch - if you work from now on in a constructive way, this will be water under the bridge. Tvoz/talk 18:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Spiro

Hi. The original lyrics were "the speeches of the Governor".

Eliot has the lyrics as "the speeches of Spiro", the 1978 songbook has "the speeches of the President", and I don't remember whether Schumacher has any lyrics.

The YouTube video clearly has "the speeches of the Spiro", and the 1974 single (recorded after Agnew resigned in 1973) has "the speeches of the President".

It's possible that Phil sang both versions, or progressed from one to the other, but I can't imagine he kept singing the Spiro lyrics after his resignation. I wrote what seemed to make sense, but feel free to modify it if you think it should be different. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

PS – I appreciate the copy-editing you're doing. Thanks. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Caylee Anthony

I was not the one who originally removed the material, but I agree with at least some of the edits and removals. As the case is no longer prominently in the public eye, many of the minute details of the investigation no longer seem appropriate to the article. I concede that perhaps some of the information should still be there, but there is also some that should be removed. Much of it, such as the publicity section, should be written in the past tense, because the case is no longer garnering much publicity. Perhaps we can reach a compromise on this issue. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for that. I just looked at the article again, and I see that quite a bit more had been removed than I realized. I agree that it makes the most sense to revert the article and edit it from there. I'll try to make a few edits of my own where I feel appropriate. Again, I apologize for not looking more closely at how much of the article had actually been removed. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification re: the POV tag. I agree that it should be removed for now. 92708S (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Musicals

Here are our article structure guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre/Article_Structure

Re: cast lists, it says: "For the original Broadway or West End production, there may be a cast list, with notable actors bluelinked, or the casting may be described in prose.... Notable replacement actors can be named.... Other productions should merely name the notable actors and production team members who have Wikipedia articles and can be blue-linked, unless their names are important to an understanding of the musical and its history.... Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

More cat s. music

Hey Tvoz, just check out here: [15] "The Wind", "Just Another Night", and "Child for a Day". My all time find though was the recording of "Later" from his Magicat tour, which is really amazing, I never knew! Tell me if I didn't share it with you. I'm finding all kinds of bootlegs now. leahtwosaints (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Ann Dunham" Wikipedia Page

Dear Tvoz, Per suggestion of Ferrylodge, who says you have an interest in this subject, I am forwarding you our talk of this morning on the "Ann Dunham" Wikipedia page.

Canopus44 (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll read it over there -thanks for letting me know. Tvoz/talk 18:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, about.com debunking info passed to RSN-talk

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#About.com -- Hopefully this kind of work will help the folks over there is some way... Thanks again, Tvoz! kind regards, --guyzero | talk 23:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tvoz! I left you a note at my talkpage... thanks =) --guyzero | talk 22:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Too many #time calls error

See my explanation here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - but it's not making sense to me, and I tried changing some earlier date formats to no avail. WHy all of a sudden anyway, and why just there? Tvoz/talk 23:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

They added {{citation/fixdate}} yesterday so that's why it didn't appear prior to today. I was taking a flier that switching from the ISO date format to the American date format would fix the problem, but looks like that doesn't actually fix the problem. All in all, there isn't anything we can do until they fix the citation template. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't me. Remember the dot removed the bit that broke the dates from the template.[16] I just pilfered some code Remember the dot created to flip from the ISO date format to the US date format. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think ISO date format (YYYY-MM-DD) is coming back. From what I can tell at Template talk:Citation/core several editors have their knickers in a twist about the ISO date format not being "proper" citation date format, so they are trying to deprecate its use. That's why you would periodically see a date that was entered into the date and accessdate fields as 2009-02-10 displaying as 10 February 2009. If you don't want to type out MDY, you can still enter in YMD and just use Remember the dot's script to clean up after yourself. If you want to use that technique, just past the following into your monobook.js

importScript('User:Remember the dot/ISO date format unifier.js');

It will add two links to your Toolbox when you edit articles, one saying "Format ISO dates in American style" the other saying "Format ISO dates in international style". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with cite format

Thanks for the message -- sorry I can't help, I am not that expert in the inner workings of templates and code stuff. Have you asked at WP:VPT? – ukexpat (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Template talk:Citation/core. I can safely say that I understood approximately 1% of that page's content, but I am pleased the problem is in capable hands! – ukexpat (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dunham House

I think the house is relevant, because it has had presidents stay there... Grover cleveland etc. Grover Cleveland was friends with William Riley Dunham.... A President Obama was highly interested in its history when he visited the house....His wife plans to visit with the girls and may use it as a get away???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silo4u (talk • contribs) 17:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's mildly interesting, but extremely minor for biographies of these people's lives and careers. You might want to write a separate article about it and see if it will fly, if you have reliable sources, other than their own promotional material, talking about it. Tvoz/talk 00:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Hutton

Quite frankly, one of the reasons I looked into it is that the name "Tarquin" sounds fairly odd and I can't figure out why Hutton would have it. It's rare as a last name - only 7 "Tarquins" on the U.S. census in 1930 - and it's not Hutton's mother's maiden name. I never saw this middle name listed for Hutton anywhere (including the IMDB) before it was added to Wikipedia in 2007. IMDB often adds birthnames/dates shortly after Wikipedia does (for example, Michael Shannon's birthdate was only put up on the IMDB two weeks after I added it to the Wiki article). My guess is, it's a case of something being posted on here that gained legitimacy after being repeated on dozens of websites - a situation I've seen over and over again. Yes, The NY Times and other reliable sources do make mistakes sometimes; however, that doesn't change the fact that at their core they are reliable sources, while the IMDB is at its core an unreliable source because biographical information, as well as birth dates and names, are often changed and/or added because of user suggestions and submissions. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno - I suppose if you really want to take out the "T", I'm not going to object much (Maybe the "T." is his middle name? Some people do have only a middle initial). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lucy in the Sky issue

I would appreciate your opinion at Talk:Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds#Written by whom? that might help avoid an edit war. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, Tvoz. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I just did! And I encourage like-minded friends to do the same. Saving the project, one article at a time. Tvoz/talk 20:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!

	WELCOME	from a Article Rescue Squad member
	Welcome to Article Rescue Squadron Tvoz, a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here: Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found I look forward to working with you in the future. Ikip (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I love your enthusiasm, it is contageous! I am sure you will be a valuable member of the squadron. Ikip (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

see also: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Tag_line thanks for the great idea. Ikip (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

email

Received, thanks. I've commented at Talk:Bee Gees as to what I think is the correct approach to this issue. I'd forgotten my previous encounter with WillOakland, but then it was a year ago! Let's hope this will result in a constructive approach to improving the article. --Rodhullandemu 18:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - it certainly can stand improving, but -as you said - butchery doesn't feel right. Actually - I didn't realize at first that your encounter was a year ago - I saw a February exchange on the topic on his talkpage, and only when I was trying to find it did I realize it was February 2008! Well, you know, plus ça change, plus c'est le même chose. CheersTvoz/talk 20:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

B Sides

When you reinstated the US info in {{The Beatles singles}}, you dropped the UK B sides and didn't supply the US B sides. Having the B sides is valuable because many of those songs are not on albums and thus hard to find. John Cardinal (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I assumed the B side removal was inadvertent. It won't be easy to get back to a version that includes both the B sides and the US releases because of the various changes that occurred since the US releases were removed. Maybe we should restore the UK B sides from a recent version and the US releases from the last version that had both A and B sides? BTW, I'm in favor of including the US releases, but that's just one opinion. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Publisher

Disscussion Moved -It is now posted at {{Cent}} at Talk:Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama#Reference_style. When the publisher is different enough to have a separate article leave them in. E.G. publisher = The New York Times Company regadless of whether the work is Boston Globe or The New York Times. In both cases the publisher has a separate article. Likewise for The Washington Post Company.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's the criterion - see Template:Cite news which specifica;ly mentions The New York Times as an example when we don't include publisher. It's really not particularly useful - yes, I would leave it in for Boston Globe, but not for NYT. See Talk:SandyGeorgia too, where I'm talking to some folks about this. It just makes the ref section that much harder to read when it's loaded with the publisher, and as I say, doesn't seem useful for a reference section. Tvoz/talk 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you almost for certain, that there is and will be no consensus. I have been through the debate numerous times. I had a Jan WP:TFA formatted with tons of linked publishers and anticipate a March WP:TFA formatted similarly. Would you mind just re-adding the publisher in any cases where it is a distinct article from the work?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never tried to set up a centralized discussion. This is an important enough and far-reaching enough issue that I am going to try that.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is now posted at {{Cent}} at Talk:Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama#Reference_style.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, sure - I don't want to work at cross purposes, and will be glad to participate in a conversation about this. I am mostly interested in streamlining what are often very long reference sections, keeping the important and useful information and reducing some of the less relevant - this being a prime example. So let's see what we can come up with. Tvoz/talk 22:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to continue doing your streamlining of the refs. I'll go along with the new paradigm.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Tvoz/talk 04:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ever since this debate, everyone has stopped working on the article. What is going on?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

← Um - I don't have any idea - haven't looked today at the FAC (or anywhere else) - has anyone said anything more over there? I know there were a load of comments by Karanacs a few days back, but haven't followed it closely enough to see if they were valid and/or addressed yet. You know how things sometimes go in waves - and sometimes FAC takes a while. I suppose you could ask people at Talk:BO or the BO Presidency article to have a look, but be careful about what you wish for, as you may get less than helpful feedback and more problems rather than more help. I personally would bide my time and keep working away at improving the piece without worrying about time, but that's up to you. I'll try to get back to it today - have been working on a few other things. Tvoz/talk

There are a lot of comments on the talk FAC discussion about the refs. Some were specific to the publisher. I thought I would let you handle them, since the discussion on publishers has gone your way. Let me know if this is a problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice you are editing, but you are not making any notes on the FAC discussion to show what you have done. Please do so, so that we can monitor progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I'm not really able to commit to a full-fledged push to FA for this article right now - I noticed some wording and reference issues that I have tried to correct, and will continue to look at that as I can, but I'm not sure it's ready for FA and it's a big job to try to bring it up to those standards. I actually haven't been working from the FAC lists of complaints, but rather from the article itself, where I see problems. Also not sure I agree with all of the points at the FAC, and I'm not really ready to give the kind of time required to fight it out. So I hope some others will help out on this. Tvoz/talk 03:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have dragged you into my FAC mess. I will be unwatching this page now. Feel free to come help as you can. It seems several people are interested in this article and we may have a shot. Come by and take part if you have any time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged - often FAC is a mess, and you didn't drag me in! I'll try to help out on it as I can. Will post this on your talk too. Tvoz/talk 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have started Wikipedia:Peer review/Inauguration of Barack Obama/archive1‎. I will be continuing to work on the article. Hopefully, over the course of the month while this is at PR we can get it cleaned up enough for FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If I told you...

You know the old caveat... but I'll tell you anyway :) To put an edit notice on a page, you first put [[{{editnotice pagename}}]] on the page (exactly that way, don't substitute the page's name for "pagename"), then preview it. This creates a red link to the page that will hold the edit notice. Click on the red link. (You're done with the original page, you just wanted to preview it to get the editnotice address, you don't want to save it). Type the edit notice, preview it, save it, and you're good to go. See Wikipedia:Editnotice. I believe that only an administrator can actually create an editnotice, as the editnotice space is protected, but a non-administrator can create one on the editnotice talk page and signal an administrator to place it (the instructions are on Wikipedia:Editnotice). -Nunh-huh 07:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant!Tvoz/talk 19:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR

I have nominated Barack Obama for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Avi (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes,I saw. In light of this screed published today, I think this FAR is ill-timed, as the need for temporary full protection is likely traceable to that. Overall, I think article probation has handled disruption well and there has not been full protection since well before the election, other than pre-emptively on election day and Inauguration Day. Let things settle down after the flurry of drive-bys ends and see how we're doing then, would be my suggestion. Tvoz/talk 21:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What I am afraid of is that if not addressed openly and forthrightly, these issues will get "swept under the rug." Further, I'm afraid that drive-by political crackpots will not leave this article until Obama is out of office, and 4-8 years is a long time to "let things settle". Being that an FAR must take at least two weeks, you do not think that reasonable people can make reasonable edits during that time? -- Avi (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these issues have been swept under any rug in the past two years, and I don't think they will be now. We have always had people with different perspectives working on this article, but we've managed - especially since probation came in - to do it more or less collegially. Today's activity is not reflective of the way things have been for much of the time, and I'm not talking about waiting 4-8 years either. This surge is due to the WND piece, and productive discussion is not all that likely under these circumstances, in my opinion. Tvoz/talk 21:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tvoz. I hope you don't mind my posting here. Whether the article was being edited collegially or not, the result was a scrubbed, promotional piece that reads like a press release. The article omits any and all criticism and controversy. As a reknowned POV pusher noted, mention of Rev. Wright somehow "slipped" out of the article and into a footnote. Whatever the reason for the attention that has been brought to the Obama article, it should be fixed with appropriate balance and links to other articles dealing with notable issues. Until then it should at the very least have a neutrality tag on it to indicate there is a dispute. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to post here any time, CoM, but I very much disagree with you - as I'm sure you know. The article has not been without attention for several years, so this recent swarm is not illuminating things that we have not considered. We've discussed various matters multiple times, with different editors on all sides, and have adjusted the article according to consensus many times. Of course we want balance - but balance does not mean giving excess weight to something that is actually a minor part of a person's entire life story, just for the sake of balance. Wright has been in and out of the text (and in and out of the footnotes accordingly) numerous times - and I can make arguments for both positions. In the heat of the primaries and general election campaigns, Wright seemed perhaps more central to Obama's life story than he did later on; in fact he virtually disappeared from mainstream discussion some time ago and I think moved into a more appropriate position in this article. The campaign articles would have more, and the separate dedicated articles the most, of course. Tvoz/talk 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your welcome and your comments. I would just point out that notability doesn't expire, and there is lots of less notable content in the article than Obama's long term relationships with Wright, Rezko, and perhaps to a lesser degree Ayers. To omit mention of them all together or key details, like for example that Rezko was one of Obama's biggest fundraisers, or the speeches and change of position with regard to Wright seems problematic. There's also no mention of the surge. No mention of Obama's school being private. No mention of criticisms or controversies with regard to the surge, the spending bill, any of Obama's controversial comments, campaign tactics, experience issue etc. etc. And it's not like there isn't room when there's poorly sourced and misleading stuff as in the last section about some professor's theory about Elevation, for example. It just looks biased which is why it was reported on by outside sources. And frankly, I think the article is embarassing and I would like to help fix it. But there doesn't seem to be any willingness to balance it from those who work on the page and like you are quite happy with the way it is. I think that's a big mistake and when any effort to add anything that isn't glowing is immediately reverted it amounts to censorship. And it's nice that people point out there are article on some of these issues, but they aren't linked to in a useful way.ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Caylees Anthony article

Hi there, sorry to bother you. There is a problem I am having with a user who keeps reverting the article back to an edit he made without proper citation. I have deleted it, telling him it is irrelevant and uncited, but he keeps putting it back and has said that I cannot tell him what to do or tell him what is and is not relevant. No one else seems to be doing anything with the article right now, and I could really use some help from a more experienced editor in dealing with this situation. Thanks. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tad - I haven't looked in there recently, so I don't know what you're referring to - but I'll take a look. Tvoz/talk 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your help in this matter, and I realize my actions are not exactly exemplary. The problems is that no one else seems to really be working with that article right now, so I wasn't really sure how to handle it. I don't even know where the "15 houses" thing came from, but the other editor's reasoning for changing it to "20 houses" appears to be that he looked the location up on Google Earth and found that the location was actually 20 houses away from the Anthony house. I'm not even sure if this is true, but, even if it is, it seems to me that it would be considered original research. I propose simply saying that the remains were found "near" the house, even though I know that that is relatively vague. I'll check again, but I don't believe that there are sources saying that her remains were found 20 houses away. One of my main points, though, is that the number of houses seems pretty irrelevant. When I say this, however, the other editor responds not by arguing its relevancy, but simply by saying that I cannot tell him what is and is not relevant. That is why I was hoping that I could get a third opinion, so it's not just an argument between two people. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to ARS!

Info on the Article Rescue Squad, complete with cool pic

Hi, Tvoz, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

Some points that may be helpful:

• WikiProject Article rescue squadron's (ARS) main aim is to help improve Wikipedia articles and content. If someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification.
• Sometimes we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Sometimes editors who are new to Wikipedia may perceive the deletion of "their" article as discouraging. Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages.
• The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion.
• Our primary work is improving Wikipedia articles and content. A more dynamic list with article links and descriptions are located at our rescue list.
• If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves.
• Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again — Welcome! ~~~~

Cat Stevens/Yusuf article

Hey Tvoz, I was just wondering if you knew about the newly released Yusuf Islam/Klaus Voorman project with a George Harrison song, here: [17] I think it's called "Yusuf and Klaus". I noticed that the banner for the albums, ect. is no longer on the article.  ?

I added a few tiny changes. Found out in the groupie book by Pamela DesBarres that has a chapter read by Patti D'Arbanville that Stevens wrote "Maybe You're Right" and "Just Another Night" for her, as well.. I put it in the article. And still seeking a decent photo. There is one that's awesome here: Şəkil:Yusuf Islam1.jpg from the Azerbaijani Wikipedia page. Not sure how to place it on our page but it's great. (Always a problem when another language writes from right to left in another alphabet). --leahtwosaints (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I added the photo I mentioned above halfway down. I am unsure about copyright considerations, though other Wikipedias (in other languages) are using it, I don't see the link to Wikimedia yet). Maybe you'll know if it is copyvio and was ever removed? --leahtwosaints (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry...

Didn't know I couldn't change that Dereks1x page. Allison cleared my name and I keep seeing Douchebagsx1 posting crap about me months later calling me "the sock farmer behind Derecks1x". One of them happens to be "Klemm" the person I called a CU in the first place that started the "Ban 94" crap.

Funny because that "Klemm" person reappeared a week ago and every post it made was to call me a sock...Pretty damn knowledgble in terms of language and rules and past feuds of the site for "new" member or Wikipedia. don't ya think?

Again, sorry for changing it....Just getting sick of Douchebagsx using it to say "you are a sock"... --seattlehawk94 (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why it says The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. on the top of the page. As for Dereks1x socks attempting to disguise themselves as innocent victims of persecution, I have nothing to say at the moment. Tvoz/talk 20:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"That's why it says The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. on the top of the page."

Dude I said I didn't know, okay....I didn't read any of that on the top of that page, said I was sorry no need to be snarky about it...--seattlehawk94 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, fair enough. Tvoz/talk 00:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Criminal Intent episode list

Hiya. Regarding actor information, I've replied at Talk:List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes#which cast ?. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Natasha Richardson

Thanks for the supporting reply to my comments about Richardson's death and notability! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I call 'em as I see 'em... Meanwhile, I have no idea why some people are so keen on including trivial details that clearly don't belong there. I mean, really, the ambulance company supervisor's name? Tvoz/talk 07:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Main.

Basically it's the same as we keep for the infobox list on the main LOST page. If they were credited as a main cast member in the opening credits, they're a main character. I mean, we could argue that Libby never had her own centric episode so should she really be considered? Ya know? Other editors kept the main LOST page infobox like that, so I'm presuming we'd keep the characters page like that. I mean, honestly, if you deleted it again, I most likely wouldn't revert it, but someone else may come along and do it for the reason(s) I've touched on above. Hope this helps? --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Thank you for at least having an argument as opposed to some editors "DO NOT REVERT MY EDITS I WILL KILL YOU" Ha ha. Or just randomly blanking any pages I have or work on. I look forward to working with you again in the future. --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

wondering..

Do you know anyone who knows how to place sound bites on pages? Cat Stevens should surely be a candidate. --leahtwosaints (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to have some sound bites, but I'm not your gal - sorry. Maybe someone who reads here will be able to help out. And I'll let you know if I think of anyone. Tvoz/talk 20:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse

Hello, I was recently banned and then rebanned for a fortnight and then banned from contacting others or even writing on my own talk page. I feel that serious abuses have occurred and my account clearly shows who was abusing their tools. The final block of me being able to even write on my own talk page about how I was blocked unjustly and the inherent problems that I could spot in the process really took the cake and I think that moderator named Tarc (but the others too) need to be seriously reprimanded and even stripped of their tools because this was serious abuse of power and it was taken to an excessive level that shows clear abuse I think. Can you please advise me on what to do to follow up on this because I believe this is of the highest importance to wikipedia integrity. Thank you. JohnHistory (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

See your talk page for my response. Tvoz/talk 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't continue this because you do want to be involved but since this just happened I wanted to tell you. My discussion on the photos at the Obama page was just labeled a "rant" and archived. This is a systemic problem and I am totally outgunned. I am honestly just trying to help create an objective encyclopedia. It just so happens that it appears the Left is opposing this. If it were the Right I would be doing the exact same thing with them. I don't know what to do when I can't even be allowed to have a discussion. I feel like all I can do is try to find a reasonable Admin. Sorry if I'm bothering you. I promise I won't engage you on this anymore. JohnHistory (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

The haunting

Sorry I had to remind you of WB74. It certainly feels eerily like his spirit has returned, doesn't it? There are definitely a few new(ish) folks hanging around who remind me of the illustrious bee, or K4T, or Andyvphil et al. :::-shiver-::: -- Scjessey (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Bernanke

Hi Tvoz: There is a discussion started here, as well: [18]. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Bernanke, I've blocked your IP friend for one day for harrassment, personal attacks, etc. Keep up the good work! TNXMan 19:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! He seems to have quite a bug up his ass, if you'll excuse the expression. Just saw that he had posted his screed on my user page too - hope the block will allow him to find some other entertainment. Tvoz/talk 19:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Obama FAC1

You are one of the leading editors of Michelle Obama and may want to participate in the discussions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michelle Obama/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Do feel free to start the FL section. I will certainly add things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am having trouble which FAC issues you resolved and which you did not. Can you comment on the fac.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also please lend your opinion on the proposed template on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Revert the Michelle's you think should be reverted and I'll have a look.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to take an axe to the DNC speech section. I have trouble chopping my own work. I appreciate your efforts with the Queen section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Noticed you're on the article rescue group

Tvoz, I need your help for two projects in danger. One is the Alun Davies page which has been largely ignored. I got a message about a strip of the 5 people including Davies, that I uploaded, from his second album prior to meeting Cat Stevens. It appears I need to add info to rationalize a copyright image. Who might know where or how to add info, like the photos of him, Nicky Hopkins, and Jon Mark from that period? I have great rationales but don't know how to go about it!!

I'm also trying to rescue Scrapomatic a duo who open for The Derek Trucks Band. I've been waiting for enough info and esp. the photos of the DTB members- (I now have all but the drummer and am trying to work on making Derek Trucks and his band separate entities. I thought whoever began the article on th Scrapomatic duo (which includes Derek Trucks Band lead singer Mike Mattison was working on iy-- and then discover the other duo member, Paul Olsen, is linked to a non-musician with that name! Can you help save Scrapomatic, at least at Start level? I can scroubge a band phoroAnd help me find someone to tell me how to save the one existing pic of Davies & bankrupt bandmates? Sorry, my right arm went totally numb and unusable about 2 weeks ago- and I'm really NOT left handed or left anything!

Also, in placing all those photos I found great bavds, artists like ELP, John Mayall, Little Feat, the Allman Brothers Band, Buddy Guy, etc, have close to nothing on so many classic performers? I was shocked! And that was before I put photos up for them, and Jeff Beck!! Still looking for more of Yusuf! thanks! --leahtwosaints (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted my talk bits?

I'm sorry, but could you explain why you deleted half of what I said on the talk page here? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rainbow_cookie&curid=14916644&diff=283713235&oldid=283663286 Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I have no idea how I managed to do that - but I fixed it. Thanks for the note. Tvoz/talk 04:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow Ochs

Glad to see we can at least agree on Phil Ochs. :) Luminifer (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this has any importance for the article?

Re: Cat Stevens, I found this on You Tube, and wonder if it's something that was a Cat Stevens project, or an individual's creation-- it's a video with clips from Dr Seuss' "The Lorax", featuring, "Where Will the Children Play?" by Cat Stevens. Any value, you think? --leahtwosaints (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

found the link - replied on your talk Tvoz/talk 18:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Point made. I just thought, if there was a Suess "Lorax" TV show, and he'd done it around the time of '70-71, it would've been a project that Cat would have liked around the "Harold and Maude" period, you know? His love of kids; the wealth of material. So maybe if he had done a little kids' special then maybe you would've read about it, maybe on that Majicat.com website or something. Just wanted to include all his stuff. I'm still trying to figure out how he and Elton John came to collaborate on that song, "Honeyman" which definitely is him and John together circa 1971- and a clip of that IS on Majicat. Check this out: [19] THAT is worthy of mention. Wonder if there's mention of it in an Elton bio, or something. Sonner of later if we want an FA article out of that piece, we'll need to cover the discographies, which I'm willing to learn (I can do a half-assed job) and I need to ask a couple of Commons editors about sound bites, but I guess I'd have to shlep over to a library or (used?) book store to find those books about Cat Stevens -esp. the one that won that award! --to really complete the article. If I did get books for the piece (I've been thinking about it), I'd photocopy key pages from the books and mail them to you if you wanted. (My email address is here leah2saints@yahoo.com if ever it is helpful.) Anyway, any ideas about "Honeyman"? --leahtwosaints (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Wasn't sure if you'd get this since I didn't indent after your comment to me. Hey did I tell you that my father gave me a book about Wikipedia for Christmas, which I haven't got to reading yet, written by User: John Broughton, with the same little fancy signature he uses here on Wikipedia? Neat to see a name I recognize, ;)) Funny.--leahtwosaints (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

gosh I do feel silly now, since I didn't indent, it alerted me I had a message, which is mine to you, so I've brought it here, just in case. --leahtwosaints (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

Hi there. Nice to see you - it has been a while. Thanks for stepping in and reverting. I notice the user talk page is full of warnings. I guess blanking them doesn't make them go away after all ;-) Rossrs (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The other image? Yes, I noticed it, and I was hoping that by removing it, it would be deleted as an orphan. It's not acceptable use in my opinion. There's no real attempt at a fair use rationale, so it's purely decorative, and the source says that it's from "the film". I doubt that. It's such a clear and well composed image that it looks more like a staged promotional shot than a randomly chosen screenshot, which always have a certain grainy look, especially if it's from an older film. I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks. I missed the Washington Post article until I came here. That's really amazing, and I have to congratulate you. You make all of us look good, so thank you for that too! Rossrs (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

sure

correct away. no problem. DGG (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Arlen Specter

At the time the article didn't fulfil all B Class Criteria, so I reassessed - I didn't think that required explanation, and the areas for improvements were, I thought, lined out by the page itself. It's true that the page improved, but for a B Class I'd say the leftover references tag should be addressed. For someone else's assessment just put the article on the WPBio Assessment page or ask someone from the project. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

You are good with wording and stuff. Mind if I ask you for help with the Stacey Castor article? See the talk page of that article to see what I mean. Right now it seems that the main "problem" is the Early life section. But I feel that it is fine now. Any help you can do to that section or any other part of the article would be much appreciated by me. If you are too busy to help, that is fine as well (of course).

Nice to meet you, too, by the way. I apologize is asking a request not long after us formally meeting seems off. Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Specter

Please see Talk: Arlen Specter#Equal Justice Act regarding my response. (Mattwashdc (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks - I'll take a look. Tvoz/talk 19:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"At this hour it's amazing I can even put two sentences together." Tell me about it. Heroin, heroin, heroin, but no one ever talks about Wikipedia. ;-) Somercet (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha tall me about it. That was after 4AM NY time. Tvoz/talk 19:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: April 2009

What the fuck are you talking about? All I added was a missing space between words. Learn to read. 69.221.144.79 (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

MANY APOLOGIES - I don't know how I did that - must have looked at a different IP's edit twice and thought one was yours - but I was 100% wrong! (Although that was one hell of a space you corrected..... <jk>) Sorry, really. I'm removing the incorrect template. Tvoz/talk 00:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I blew up on you... all is fine. 69.221.144.79 (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Philip Markoff (part VII)

Well it's that time of the day and it seems that Theo789 is back to "fix" the article. Complete with edit summaries like (Stop removing this info on the defense to slant the article.) I was thinking of posting over to WP:BLP/N, just a plea for some additional eyes and comments. Just thought I'd run it by you for a second opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Unlike other days he only made a few edits and then left. Still I'll try to work up a post before the day ends.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I created a draft post here User_talk:Cube_lurker/Sandbox#Phillip_Markoff. That look ok?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Posted here Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Phillip_Markoff--Cube lurker (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

past tense of "plead" per Bartleby in Philip Markoff

Using your plea for consistency as a starting point, and building on your citing Bartleby, which I have read, where it states plainly that "the media almost always uses pled to report a defendant’s actions: The defendant pled [not] guilty.", I have changed the past tense of the verb "to plead" to say "pled" throughout the article. Regards, Tomer^talk 08:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Help!!

Tvoz, please see the last comment on my talk page about Alun Davies, it is now an orphaned article, since I'm the only author I got this message and they took away the Discography photos, and now, I think at the very least the only photo I have of Davies from ANYPLACE which is the cover of his album. As the only author of the article thus far, I think they are intending to vote to delete it as well. Please help, read the note! --leahtwosaints (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Have stumbled across comments you've left for various persons and just want to say thank you for your incredible patience and generosity of time and spirit in helping folks. I aspire to be more like you as an editor. Kmzundel (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate that. Tvoz/talk 02:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed some of our overlapping interests as well.  :-) Drop me a line if you can at kmzundelatcomcastdotnet. Thanks! Kmzundel (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Email awaits. Tvoz/talk 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Remembering May 4, 1970

Pausing to remember Jeffrey Miller, 20; Allison Krause, 19; William Knox Schroeder, 19; and Sandra Scheuer, 20 - four unarmed students who were shot dead by American soldiers on an Ohio college campus. I was hundreds of miles away on another college campus that terrible May day... and it could have been me. Tvoz/talk 03:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And, again. Forty years later, the tragedy still stings. Tvoz/talk 17:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Remembering again, and always. They would have been 60 years old now, having lived full lives, with children, grandchildren. But they were murdered with the tacit approval of the highest powers in our government at that time. This is not a conspiracy theory, this actually happened. And we cannot forget. Tvoz/talk 17:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton GAR

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussions have been moved to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hillary Rodham Clinton/3.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yusuf's mailing list

Tvoz, are you on Yusuf's mailing list? I really hope so, because, in ad admitted frenzy of begging for, and then uploading photos to Commons, and placing infoboxes and said photos in them, I've been fairly busy. I can't believe all the articles that were missing (and some still are) basic photos, and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia- how are folks supposed to know what or who is being discussed without photographs??! Anyway, placing the photos sidetracks me, and since you are the lead editor for Cat Stevens, and maybe I contribute the next amount after you, I'm hoping you keep up with his 'news' and current activities and are watching the page. Please tell me you are. Thanks. (I've nearly got this photo thing out of my system), --leahtwosaints (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm watching the page - and keeping it honest! But no, I'm not on the mailing list. Not sure we want to have up-to-the-minute reports on his activities in his bio, but I don't mind hearing about them and seeing what's appropriate. Where's the sign-on? Tvoz/talk 23:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's sort of a relief. I've uploaded (I think) over 500 photos to Commons and placed all but a handful of them on Wikipedia. It's kind of gratifying to see all these other language Wikipedia using the photos now too- that quick! I said "I think" just because when I was first learning, I accidentally uploaded the same photos a couple of times. BUT. Now, about Yusuf, you really should join his mailing list. I don't get more than maybe one month an email about an interview, performance, or new album. It doesn't spam you. I just went to his website, which looks awful today, I just looked. Really commercial! WTF? Anyway, they make it really easy to find and sign up for it. Just look. --leahtwosaints (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Phil Ochs GA

That was the most painless GA I've ever seen. Congratulations. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 17:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I know - over before it began! Thanks and congrats go to you for bringing new energy to the article and getting it to this point! Tvoz/talk 18:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 20:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tact

Thank you for your kind words. Happy editing! Unschool 06:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Move

I have moved User Tvoz:Temp to User:Tvoz/Temp. And this page is badly overdue for archiving - try the MiszaBot. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, gettin' on that archiving Real Soon Now. No thanks about the bot though. I don't do bots. Tvoz/talk 04:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Thanks

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO I want to thank you for your hard editorial work. Feel free to display the following userbox:

This user helped promote Phil Ochs to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Tvoz/talk 03:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yusuf stuff

Hey woman, I found two emails buried in another email address that I try to ignore. One was like, an ad for Roadsinger, which said: Yusuf, the artist known as Cat Stevens, returns on May 5th with his long-anticipated new album, Roadsinger. List from Amazon.com with a bonus track Scroll down on the link there, you'll find a video interview with Yusuf Islam and Alun Davies. Then, it says in the email,: "Recorded in studios across the world, Roadsinger features 11 brand new songs in the classic Cat Stevens style. Special guests include James Morrison, Gunnar Nelson and Michelle Branch. Following his headline appearance at Island Record's 50th Anniversary show recently, Yusuf is set to appear in a BBC documentary about the legendary label. Yusuf was interviewed for the programme alongside his longtime guitarist Alun Davies. The documentary, entitled 'Keep on Running: 50 Years of Island Records', will be aired on 5 June at 9pm on BBC Four. Further details can be found here- BBC Four Article

The other is an email from (I think his publicist). Asking kindly if we would keep his page up to date with the Roadsinger stuff, and providing this article link: Preview of Roadsinger It appears that because it's Island Records' 50th Anniversary, and Yusuf really provided the first real hits for Island with the now-famous trio of records that were his best, they are giving him more attention... Yusuf playing the Shepherds Bush Empire on May 28th as part of the series of Island 50 concerts.

Well, that's about it. I just wanted to remember to send it to you as you know the most about the article. --leahtwosaints (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I have this info. Of course we would prefer to have third-party sources talking about his new work rather than relying too much on his own website - any reviews, interviews, etc would be great sources. Tvoz/talk 17:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

About Sotomayor

While at Princeton she wrote a thesis titled, "Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture"where she argues that the Second Amendment does not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms. She believes that the military, not the people, have this right. In this thesis she states that, it has been illegal for individuals to own firearms since the passing of the Bill of Rights. [20][21] [22] [23]

This is my last revision, and it was deleted also.

I tried to put in the piece without the links - it was rejected. I tried to revise it and repaste it with references - it was rejected. I tried to add more references and repaste it - it was rejected.

By a guy who, on his own User talk site, claims to be anti-fox (which is understandable), pro-msnbc (which makes him dumb), a liberal (which shows he is decieved with the false left/right paradiem), a left wing capitalist (which shows him to be very confused), pro-drugs (which explains alot), pro-tax, anti-religion, and supports the NAU (but will insist that it doesn't exist).

But most notable, this IDIOT is an ANTI-GUN nut and voted for Obama, which is why any attempt to show Sotomayor, the Obama, Supreme Court nominee, as a gun grabber is being blocked. He knows that a MASSIVE MAJORITY of our country is PRO-2nd Amendment and would be very upset to learn that Obama's pick for Suprmem Court justice believes that the 2nd Amendment makes gun ownership illegal. Talk about the inability to read and comprehend English. This is information that needs to get out before her hearing so she can be asked about her position. But politically driven NUTS like TharsHammar are editing Wiki to hide this fact about this nominee. What a disgrace!!! Are you gonna let this happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeinTX (talk • contribs) 20:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI tvoz, he is trying to add an internet rumor to a BLP. [24]. That is a no go. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Thars, the carefully reasoned post above made that pretty clear to me. Needless to say, without reliable sourcing it is not going in. To Freein TX, if the only sourcing you can find are blogs, you might want to consider whether these claims are actually true, and please don't attack other editors on my talk page, or anywhere else. TharsHammar's reverts were valid and consistent with BLP policy. Tvoz/talk 23:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yusuf and music clips

Check out this clip from YouTube with the second half having to do with one of Yusuf's songs, and his dialouge about it: [25]. Have been sick lately, so I've been limiting myself to very humdrum things mostly. (I may be back in hospital sometime very soon, like tomorrow?) Also, another editor says he believes he can make sound clips for Cat Stevens. You can read some of our conversation at my talk page. I asked him to either do it or show me (us?) how; and in return, I'm looking for some photos for him, which is great. I asked for, "The First Cut is the Deepest", "Wild World", "Father and Son", and "Peace Train", all of which have pages, and information, and I believe are representative of some of Cat Stevens' most essential work. He's also good with doing album and song pages, and I did mention that you were involved in the page before me.--leahtwosaints (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing study

Hi Tvoz. I'm a doctoral student in mass communication at Indiana University and I'm doing some research on the editing of Wikipedia. One of the articles I am studying is Barack Obama. My questions in the study are about the editing process on high-profile current affairs articles and how that editing changes over time. As part of the study I would like to do some group discussions with editors. I was hoping you might be interested in participating. I would like to have discussions via skype with three or four editors at a time who work(ed) together on the same article. The conversation would be 30 minutes to an hour. If you are interested I could send a summary of the project and other stuff the university requires me to send. If interested you could drop a note on my talk page. Thanks for considering this. lyonspen | (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply Tvoz, but I'm not seeing e-mail in the toolbox. lyonspen | (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

belt and suspenders

fyi, I was about to fix that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha - yeah, there is such a thing as overkill.... Thanks for keeping it all straight! Tvoz/talk 05:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Computer that is far more lazy and inept than me

Been meaning to contact you. I need your help. This computer only allows the uttermost basic use. I can't splice images; download most things and so forth. So I am asking you to help me archive my talk page, just till May. Will you do it? And, while you are there, perhaps you would like some input into the song clips being made by another editor, I upload photos and build infoboxes for his projects, and he helps with Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam/Yusuf. He is really, really good. I'd like to show Yusuf's slow return to music, but am concerned if the music from the perfomance he gave here: [26] It was the first time he was seen performing with the guitar and left the quote about drawing people in by pleasing music. Your feedback? --leahtwosaints (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I did the archive - it's really easier than you think and does not involve anything more complicated than cut and paste. No downloading - I already created skeleton archive pages which are ready for you to paste stuff in - you should try it next time. On the clips - don't know what you're asking. I'm not clear on current policy regarding clips and fair use - maybe you can ask at one of the project pages. This and images are two things I stay away from here. I know that using You Tube has long been a problem (although I don't agree with the concern myself) - but I don't know what anyone would say about taking an audio clip of this one - the copyright status is unclear to me. Nor do I know how people feel about using many audio clips in one article. As I say, I stay away from all of this - not my interest area, and I have enough controversial areas to worry about. Tvoz/talk 03:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. That's fine. Funny we are heading in different directions, even though I know so little- I've uploaded and placed hundreds of images for various pages now. Suede67 is a really nice guy I bumped into, and he's willing to do clips. Don't worry then about the technicalities of the song clips now, then, as Spinningspark is really good in that category and is an Admin. here, so I'll ask him about that. What songs would you feel would be most representative of all 3 of the Cat Stevens personae? I mean, look at the Clapton article, if you want to see the progression of sound. It is after all, not just a political piece (your territory), but a musician work group piece.

Other than that, should you want any images without the IFs and Hows, I'll be happy to do it, another trick I finally learned. I have no aspirations here, just want to see good articles. I bounce from place to place mostly creating infoboxes, adding photos, copyediting for grammar, and style as best I can, and such these days.--leahtwosaints (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that's the nice thing about Wikipedia - there's always someone who's interested in working on exactly what you're not interested in working on - so the trick is just to find those kind souls! Off the top of my head - I think we need to add "Peace Train" which is an emblematic song, definitely keep "First Cut" and "Wild World"; I'd like to see "Father & Son" and "Indian Ocean" added - "F&S" because it spans his career from original recording to the Ronan Keating recording, and "IO" because it was the first Yusuf secular release that got any attention. "Later" is ok, or could be swapped with "Oh Very Young" or just add "OVY". What do you think? Tvoz/talk 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You have SO read my mind, it's amazing. I picked:

"The First Cut is the Deepest" "Trouble" -- wanting to show his time with TB "Wild World"-- first American AND Euro success "Peace Train" -- most associated with him "A is for Allah" -- want to show his path from instruments "Indian Ocean" -- and then his path back "Father and Son"-- Probly 1 of his top 5, and autobiographical- and this clip is from Yusuf Islam "Roadsinger" -- while this clip, or another of the new ones is Yusuf. There may be more, because some will go to album pages that I want to expand. I'm pretty much now focusing more on his article, and the ones for Derek Trucks- slight detours, but I told you about when I get bored what I do- photos, and construction. --leahtwosaints (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK - definitely need to add the Cat songs sooner rather than later (Peace Train, original F&S, Oh Very Young) sooner rather than later - it's getting kind of Yusuf-heavy and that isn't consistent with the relative importance to his career/fame, as laid out in the article. Can you ask your guy to do those? Tvoz/talk 01:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad tidings

I'm bummed out. Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam/Yusuf and Alun Davies both may need serious review of references. I may be wrong, though I bet not, that Yusuf pulled the Majicat website off the internet, leaving lots of references-- especially for Alun, who has so little information as basically a session musician. Davies' article truly breaks my heart-- I'd have invested a LOT in seeing him get to GA status if the information had been there!

Oh, and think of the album and song pages. SIGH. Just a mess probably. I'm scared to look at them!! Here I've got clips on song pages, and through the article, I want your advice on them, and wish you to check my talk page for a young, really smart editor who is too modest. He has brought Snow Patrol to FA status, along with song pages, sound bites he made for Cat Stevens as a favor- you should get to know him just because he is so diligent he misses nothing, and his work on the album pages for his favorite band make FA articles look shabby! His user name is Suede 67 I think.. just look. I told him about you, that you're the lead editor on Cat Stevens. I just care about it too. I was going to attack the album pages, song pages, multimedia issues, but, now it's really going to be work.

Davies is upsetting. Yusuf, I find photos that are beauties on Flickr, but, they're all from his label or publicist or something. I find lots and lots of new videos from Yusuf showing Davies like never before. I am going to ask about using a video image of him just to have a face for his page. I can't stand having to figure out where to find the justification pages to fill out to do that with copyrighted material-- oh, I meant to thank you for bringing his Daydo album cover photo back within the text. That was very kind.

How do you feel about the placement and length of sound clips in the Stevens/Yusuf article, and on the album and song pages? I would like feedback on my choices. --leahtwosaints (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Tvoz/talk 05:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson archiving

Sorry, I didn't know there was a Bot doing the archiving, I was just carrying out the cut and paste procedure. If you want, I can move some of the more recent discussions from the achive to the main discussion page; I know a lot of the stuff is less than 2 days old, but there's obviously much more discussion going on with that article than normal. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yusuf Suggestions

OK, I added "Father and Son" to the text.

1. I think more should be said about his final Cat Stevens albums after Catch Bull at Four before he knew he was converting to Islam. There is little about that, and how they charted in comparison, and the same is true about his Muslim records as well. Izitso has synthisizers and a whole new sound ahead of it's time on songs like "Was Dog a Doughnut",[27] with no singing, etc, again, him trying new things as with Foreigner.

Of the Muslim albums, Talal al-Bedru Aleyna, for example, is a song in both English and in Arabic, and appeared on a children's record he released with children singing with him. Same with "The Wind East and West" referenced in the text near that.

1. spiritual quest throughout his life after TB! I'd like to see more of a very obvious (I don't know the word-- timeline?) of discussion both with his own comments, and about the songs he wrote- I have comments from Patti D'Arbanville even (and she mentions a time when the two of them went to the beach in 1974 where he was still looking for The Path-- about his quest to find himself spiritually)! It needs to be more obvious to those who read the article. As now, he is stressing the song "On the Road to Find Out" ("The answer lies within, why don't you take a look now? Kick out the Devil's sin..") "The Hurt" (You say you want to seek the truth, but its hard to find.. etc....You say you want to seek the truth, but you work alone, no one to help you, and nobody to push you on.... you wait for a miracle..." --and many more, I don't need to tell you! Especially with that block of text where he says he sees the meaning of his songs late, afterward.
2. His move to Rio wasn't only to avoid taxes, but also because his celebrity was giving him no freedom from crowding fans, yet, sending him to lonliness even more so. The song "Sitting", illustrates that, referenced in several of his interviews, from 2006- now!
3. I can't find that email from the publicist or whomever. Which of us should email the information link on the main page of his website and tell them about Magicat affecting both Yusuf and Davies? Also, it might be good to let them know I've striven to have clips of songs that are not haram in Islam, and ditto with photos showing the parts of a man's body that should be covered, etc. out of respect but trying to be NPOV and at the same time, to the artist. At the same time, I was the one who added the most about deportation(S) --not just from the USA, but from Israel too.
4. Do you know someone who is in the album working group? Making pages or updating and improving the albums and song pages we have now? I'd have to learn it to do them justice, and there'll be more singles to add on to the banner now as well as doing song pages and fixing the old ones.

Well, that's what I've been thinking about. Cheers! --leahtwosaints (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Leah - I'll email you off-Wiki with the name and address of the publicist you were communicating with - the private info should not be posted here on Wikipedia. You should write to him because you've already established a connection and also because you are the one who is familiar with the multiple Majicat references that are affected. (This is one reason I have cautioned against using his own websites too much as source - they are too easily changed by the people running the sites, as opposed to third-party magazines and newspapers which once published presumably aren't altered or removed.) Back to why you should be the one writing to the publicist - also, I have no knowledge of Davies details, so am not the best one to speak on behalf of that article.

As for your using non-haram material - I can't make editing decisions based on that, and actually wasn't aware that you were. My approach to this article from when I first starting working on it in 2006, was to strive for it to be neutral and comprehensive, and not pushing any agenda (I'm not saying that you are at all), but bearing in mind what I think is objectively true - that his greatest fame and impact came as Cat Stevens and that work and those years are why he is known now. I think he himself acknowledges that now as he has embraced his old music and puts stickers on album covers referring to him as "formerly known" as Cat Stevens, etc. That is not to take anything away from his recent work - and I think it needs to be covered to some degree of course - but it speaks to why the Cat Stevens material needs to remain the most prominent in the piece, and why the article name is correctly rendered now. However, I don't object to adding some material about his current music and activities - I think that enhances the article and our understanding of him - but I don't think we can or should list every concert or appearance he makes or discuss every recording at length. If they have an impact on the culture as a whole, then yes - so sales/downloads, concert attendance, interviews and articles written about him, etc are factors that help us determine the relative "importance" of the material.

Regarding the deportations, Rushdie, other such stuff, I also have worked hard to include those that got attention, and balance the reports with his responses, what other people have said, etc. The Rushdie matter was hard fought on the talk pages, and I think we reached a good compromise, to have the short statement we have in the main article, and the fork article with more detail. The deportations are also well-handled, I believe, because they are factually presented, but avoid secondary characterizations of groups he is said to have supported which is best handled via wikilinks. It's all in the archives. So I appreciate the work you've done to keep that section balanced.

As for your various content suggestions above: I think you should go ahead and add material if you have good sourcing, not just your analysis (however correct it is!) or his own - the best thing is to find third-party sources making the points and the evaluations, and quote them. And then let's see how it looks. (For example, I am not really conversant about Izitso's impact so would like to see some reviewers' or other writers' published evaluations on that one.)

Anyway.... hope my thoughts are helpful. I don't know off-hand about who might be working on any of the other pages, but I'll take a look when I have a moment. And I'll email you the publicist info later today. Hope you're feeling better. Tvoz/talk 19:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, I'd use good references. I'm just saying, the things I did; I could just as easily have portrayed Steven's work by putting a clip of SunC69 singing, "We met behind the stage, she had the best figure by far..she was a junkie then; I was having a good time! Back on the road again!" OR a clip singing "Peace Train". Both from approx. the same era. His people have pulled the first song from YouTube as a video several times, but by now, it's all over the place. I would NEVER lower the quality of a biography by avoiding the truth. It's just that do you want the truth to be ugly and glaring? Or more representative of him, and I think the choices I made were middle of the road, as were yours. NPOV, even though we both like his stuff. I didn't consciously make the choices I made in the song clips actually until I looked back at the clips and saw that perhaps unconsciously they may have had something to do with his new image. Only two photos were offered to me, one too blurry to be sure it was him (or even a human) and the other, looked like it was a photo taken of a newspaper photo.

1. I'll email the people, and see what can be done. Since he bought the whole website, I would assume he'd want it saved somewhere even if not online.
2. We both edited the parts about deportations, etc. I never meant to belittle the amount of work you did on that! Except I don't like to argue in the WP, and that anti-Yusuf editor turned me off-- you were doing a good enough job, I didn't want her to feel we were ganging up on her, and have her respond worse, so I left that alone.
3. I feel I kept my edits NPOV or someone would have done something if it was a problem. But no, the song choices were because of their popularity, etc. Once the album and song pages are expanded, we can add the drop in his popularity as he moved away from the singer-songwriter genre with Samwell-Smith and Davies, to explore other areas. That part is easy enough, just a couple references and looking up the RIAA album ranking, and the critics' responses.

Currently between his two albums, he's been writing a musical called Moonshadow which I think is a mistake. Remember what happened the last time he began a musical! Anyway, I've not been well, was beginning to get better, and did too much too fast, mostly uploading photos. People have to give up their photo copyrights and once you talk a professional photographer into doing that, they want to see it on WP like, NOW! SO, I'm worn out. Gonna need a day to crash after writing the publicist, or whoever.--leahtwosaints (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear, let me say I think you've done a great job on the article, and yes, NPOV and responsible all around. Did not intend to suggest anything else. I'm laughing at your "SunC69" comment - no idea who or what that is, but I think it's beyond absurd to consider not picking Peace Train over any other song for inclusion in a bio as The Song that is most identified with him! Tvoz/talk 00:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cat Stevens

In Template talk:Cat Stevens, you said that "the template which appears only on his music sub pages". Do you regard Cat Stevens as a sub page? Andjam (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not. I see that I misspoke, but that's certainly not what I meant to say. Cat Stevens is the main biography, and of course it should include the template that lists his recordings. That's why I reinstated the template on the bio page when you removed it. What I was saying on the template talk page is that the purpose of the template is to list his recordings: the singles and albums he recorded as Cat Stevens and then as Yusuf. What I said is inappropriate is to include on that template a link to the subpage that details the Salman Rushdie matter, which is handled by the wikilink on the main page to the subpage. The template is about his music only, and of course it belongs on his bio as well as on his music pages. Tvoz/talk 03:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Malia Obama

Where exactly was this consensus made? I had made sure to look for any discussions involving the page, but I was unable to find anything in regards to keeping the article as a redirect to the Obama family article. Thanks. Gage (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion discussion here. My reply on User talk: GageSkidmore. Tvoz/talk 06:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul McCartney GAR notification

Paul McCartney has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Message about Leah.

Hello Tvoz, I have a message for you from Leah. She said that she's having problems with he computer for the past few days, and that's why she's not coming on Wiki as often. She had written to Yusuf about the problems with the Magicat website, which (I think) has been taken down. He are her exact words: "I wrote Yusuf's info address, about the problems with Magicat's website being gone for Cat Stevens and Alun Davies before I began having these computer problems, so that's why nobody has heard from me or seen me working/ I was able to do just a few lines." Suede67 (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Nice to meet you. Tvoz/talk 23:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Suede67 (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Contact from Yusuf

Hey, I got an email response from Umair (that's the same guy who always wrote me before) Spoke about the Magicat site, etc. He first said, the site crashed which was a problem for them, as well, since they refer to it frequently too! (Surprise, surprise!). About the photos, he attached two in the email. Like,gave me via my Yahoo email two photos, one face shot of Cat Stevens and one of Yusuf, recently, with guitar. I need to check with the Commons Nazis (or at least a knowledgeable person about how to upload them without issues. Regarding my request for some good websites with information and photos of Alun Davies, he sent me the URL to.. the page we began, his page in the Wikipedia! Couldn't believe it! I wrote back, telling him all the obvious things that I doubt I need mention here!--leahtwosaints (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha, about Davies article - love those self-referents! Glad you made contact with him - good luck with the photo stuff. As you know, the photo regulations are distinctly not my thing, but I would love to see a clear pic of him as Cat up there. As for Magicat, I hope they'll try to get it back up - it did have a wealth of information. Be well Tvoz/talk 22:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Got to plan

Tvoz-- I don't even recall how to get to the Wikipedia email on the settings area. I've never had photos mailed before. I have a good photo of young Cat Stevens, and was told what the caption should read. It IS a face shot of him - caption: "Cat Stevens photographed in 1974". The second, of him with his guitar, caption: ""Yusuf performing at the Hal Ashby Tribute, held at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in Los Angeles, June 2009. Photo courtesy of AMPAS". I did tell Umair that I'd be sharing this email with several Wikipedian editors, (and confidentiality would be absurd since he's giving the photos under what amounts to a BY-SA 2.0 Creative Commons license. Here's the thing: I need to find someone who will allow me to email the two photos to, who has a way to enter them into Commons. Do you know anyone who could figure out the logistics of this, and get the photos uploaded? I can ask SpinningSpark but I feel I've really been leaning on him too much lately, since the Wikimedia Commons server has been utterly sluggish. Any ideas of someone else? I don't want to piss off somebody new like I did with your buddy before I knew how to upload from Flickr.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting to email? If an editor has it enabled, you click on "E-mail this user" in the left column on their User page or user talk page, under Toolbox. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean. Pictures sound good, if they are actually being given over to the public domain and they understand what that means. But I don't know who can help on this - have you asked on the various workshop pages? As I keep telling you - there are lots of people here who concentrate on images, but I am distinctly not one of them, and only understand this in a general sense. Can't you just upload them directly to Commons? You also could ask for help at the Village Pump. Tvoz/talk 07:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Group or band – which one?

We are holding a straw poll (in a very friendly way, of course) to decide if The Beatles should be called a group, or a band. You can add your user signature to one or the other by clicking this link, Group or band – which one?. Thanks.--andreasegde (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wowser - love those straw polls! Tvoz/talk 07:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Heartfelt

"My son saw Macca at Shea/CitiField on Friday, and he'd probably say "band", but he doesn't get a vote because he took his girlfriend to the concert instead of his mother."

I think it's time to start spending his inheritance. There again, it's probably the same effect we had on our parents. My sympathies. :)--andreasegde (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Did your young spraffer write the review?--andreasegde (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes! He writes for Entertainment Weekly - print and online - mostly about music, but sometimes other stuff too - does reviews, interviews, features, etc. A dream job, for an eclectic music/pop culture junkie like him. Writes as easily about McCartney as he does about Jay-Z or Pete Seeger. Makes his mom and dad proud for sure! Tvoz/talk 04:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

the Influences and the influenced

I suggest that you take this up on the template talk page rather than blanking the templates' contents in articles. — goethean ॐ 02:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Information being incomplete is not a valid argument for removing the extant information, in my opinion. — goethean ॐ 15:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about the Obama daughters

Do you think that there is enough information to create an article like Obama daughters or Malia and Sasha Obama? I'm thinking that might be a violation of WP:NOTINHERITED, but I was just curious as to your thoughts on the matter. UnitAnode 20:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think a separate article about the daughters is needed, as they are well-covered in the article Family of Barack Obama, and they do not have independent notability. When separate articles have been tried for Malia, they were merely repetitions of what we have in the Family article, so the redirect seems to accomplish what we want. If someone comes here to read about the daughters, they are redirected to the article that talks about them, and other family members who similarly don't have independent notability. This is being discussed at Family of Barack Obama#Malia Obama article. Tvoz/talk 21:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Pete Seeger

Hi Tvoz: I think the problem is that "my computer ate my homework." I looked over my contributions and your talk page was not on it. (There was an electrical torn that night). But I still think that the current lead on Pete Seeger are biased in favor of the subject. As I've said, "tireless" is a bit too much like tireless promotion :P V. Joe (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've lost things that I was sure I posted too, so I understand that. As for Pete Seeger - obviously I disagree with you. If you think describing a man of age 90 who has spent a lifetime and is still out there on the frontlines actively working for environmental and other causes as "tireless" is biased, all I can say is I wish you the same strength in your own old age (and me too). As you may see, the word is out of the intro at the moment, but I really do think when objections were raised to your edit - which after all reflects your own biases, right? - it would have been a better approach to talk about the edit rather than just reinstating it. By the way - as I asked on the talk page, would you be more comfortable with the word "tireless" if I added citations for it? I think it would be easy to find reliable, neutral sources who would characterize Pete as tireless. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 04:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Would a word like "relentless" or "consistent" be better? (I'll check on Seeger's talk too) Luminifer (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Ann Dunham/GA1

Since you are the primary contributor to Ann Dunham, I'm hoping that you have time to help fix and address the concerns raised by the reviewer. I would be happy to help out as well, even though I am only the nominator. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take a look at it in the next few days - I was not aware of the nomination until I saw it just now (aren't there usually notifications?). I've been unhappy with the insistence of a couple of editors on including much too much minute and sometimes contradictory anecdotal detail in the notes about the first year or two of Barack's life - perhaps following some ulterior motive or agenda - so I hope this review doesn't lead to any difficulty. Tvoz/talk 04:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The only notifications that I'm aware of are WP:GAN, where the nomination is listed on the main page, and the top of the article talk page itself, where the nominator adds the GAN banner. So, if you aren't watching GAN or you don't have Talk:Ann Dunham watchlisted, you wouldn't see it; The review also takes place on a subpage. In any case, it's good to know that you will be active. Like I said, I'm going to try and help out, but I won't feel the least bit discouraged or put off if you find fault with my edits; I'm much more concerned with meeting the requirements of the review and seeing the article pass. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I of course have the article/talk page watchlisted, but unfortunately it's one of 3000+, so I missed it. I thought lead editors were given a heads-up on their talk when these kinds of actions are initiated, but maybe I'm thinking of Afds and FA actions. In any case, now I'm notified! Tvoz/talk 05:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like some editors add a notice to the WikiProject as well. I will try to get in the habit of doing that. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The cavalry has arrived! :) Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bumped into.. this!

Tvoz, what the hell is this?! [28] I feel offended, and still don't know what the hell it is!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. Tvoz/talk 23:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Maintained

Hi. Just a note to tell you that since you are a primary contributor, I've added your name as a contact to a {{maintained}} template on Talk:Ann Dunham. Please feel free to remove it if you so desire. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but actually I'm not a big fan of that template - anyone with any questions should post on Talk where numerous editors involved can answer questions. Especially on this article where I'm not completely on board with some of the references. Your intentions were good, I know, but let's leave it off. Tvoz/talk 17:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I used to feel the same way until I put myself in the shoes of a new contributor, who may feel more comfortable seeing a contact person in the header, allowing them to address any questions to one editor. You see, sometimes, articles may not always be watched for questions and comments, and the template provides an alternate way to get the attention of an involved editor. In any case, could you bring the reference problem to the talk page, so we can solve it once and for all? Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for copyedits

Thanks for the copyedits on George W. Romney. Another one of those articles where by the time I had gotten in all that I wanted to, I was too tired of it to look at it any more ...

And if it's really true that only 13% of editors are female, that's really depressing. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know how that feels.... I'm looking George over slowly. Tvoz/talk 02:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "Family background" section in that article, I inherited it and have never been sure what to do with it. It certainly goes into more detail than is really necessary to understand George's background and why he was born in Mexico. I'm tempted to merge it into the Pratt–Romney family article in some way. I'm not sure if this material got in the George Romney article as a fallout from the Mitt and Mormon history disputes of a couple of years ago, or if it's just from geneaological enthusiasm on the part of some editor. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah - I knew you didn't write that! I cut it down and reorganized it some, because I found it impossible to follow - but I think it's still too much detail. Merging to Pratt-ROmney is a good idea - I did a similar cut and move to Ann Dunham over the weekend - haven't looked yet to see if it survived. Genealogy is all well and good, but where someone's grandfather is buried is just too much for me. I'd cut down George more. I think you're right, by the way, about the probable source of this being the stuff about the legitimacy of citizenship - same thing goes for the deep interest in Dunham's ancestry. Needless to say, if I mess up some facts in my zeal for streamlining George, of course correct me! Tvoz/talk 21:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've now merged the original material of the "Family background" section into the Pratt–Romney family article, keeping all that where-they-are-buried detail since it seems appropriate for an article like that (but if anyone wants to further work on it there, they can). I've eliminated the section from the Romney article, and just kept the most important background (a fraction of the original text) for the "Early life" section. I think I need to improve the citing on this material, though. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Magicat is up

In case you didn't know, Magicat.com is up AND there's a bunch of new stuff- discussion of good old Uncle Hugo, his influence on Steve, examples of his art (really good, too..) and more. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's great - I'll have to take a look when I have a chance. We should not lean too heavily on it, though - same issue of too much from one source and questions of reliability. But it'll be fun to read! Tvoz/talk 20:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiny new computer

I saw you just got one? Which one pls, and how happy are you with it, and advice? I am thinking of getting a netbook type device myself, so any feedback/warnings/help you can give would be most appreciated!!! thanks in advance - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Pup! I just got my new little baby up and running and I love it! I did a fair amount of comparison shopping and online reading and in the end I got the Toshiba Mini 10, mostly because for me the keyboard was the most comfortable (and it's adorable). Some of them (like the Aeee cheapie at Staples) felt rinky-dink, and kind of crabby - tiny keys and a cheap feel. The Dell keyboard is good but I liked the Toshiba best because the keys are separated and easier for me to type discrete keys. There are really big differences in models, even within a company, so you should try them out in stores first even if you decide to buy online. The HP model had a weird touchpad/mouse arrangement that I didn't like (left & right click buttons are on the sides of the touchpad instead of below it - I'm too old to re-learn mouse skills!); one of the Acers that I liked, because it has a slightly bigger screen, I nixed because it has Windows Vista - most of the others use XP; another Aeee model had a better keyboard but the screen sucked.... etc. So it came down to Toshiba vs Dell. Other things I preferred in the Toshiba are the larger 6-cell battery (supposedly 9 hours!) and the fact that the RAM (now 1GB) can be upgraded to 2GB down the road. Cost for the Dell and Toshiba was equivalent, so the Toshiba made more sense to me. Weight is under 3 pounds and it is unbelievably fast- downloaded and installed Firefox in seconds. One warning - for all of the netbooks - there is no CD drive. You have 3 USB ports, though, so can get an external CD drive which I probably will. The hard disk on most of them is 160 GB which is not bad, and you also could get an external hard drive. They all have built-in webcam and mic, so it's perfect for video chatting/Skype (daughter is on her way to Brazil for a few months, which is why I got this now). I didn't get the card for wifi anywhere, because I don't really have that need right now and don't want the monthly charge - but I'm looking into whether there are pay-as-you-go cards that would only charge for real usage or something like that. But it worked right out of the box with the wifi in my house - just had to figure out how to turn wifi on since it's not an on-off button but instead a function key. Of course the screen is small, so you have to get used to that - but the speed is so good, that I don't mind. And the clarity of the screen is impressive`-`when you're on ac power it is very bright and very readable - on battery it is slightly dimmer, but still very clear. This is the ultimate web-surfing email computer! Hope this helps! I'm not usually that into the nerdy details, but here it was pretty easy to compare and learn quickly - feel free to ask any questions you have (here or on email) - I haven't loved a computer this much since our 1985 Radio Shack TRS-80 Model 100 "portable" computer with its 8K RAM (yes, K) and 8 line screen. What a sweetie that was! But this Toshiba is a lot sweeter! Good to see ya! Tvoz/talk 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You are wonderful, thank you so much for taking the time to type all this! My current front-runners are an Acer (10.? screen, XP, not the 11", Vista - they're cheap, you know?) and the HP - I think I'd adapt to the mouse config - but I have not seen a Toshiba to test drive so I'll have to go check that out. I know about the CD drive, I almost decided to wait until someone came out with a tiny laptop which supported DVDs, but my spousal unit already convinced me external would be workable for me. Was the mousepad the only thing which ruled out the HP for you? And wow, Trash80 - your geek creds are impressive. I skipped the Trash80 and was never a VICtim, but I did have a C64. My spousal unit had a Trash80 though. :-) Thank you again - there is nothing like getting details from someone who has one, its different from looking online and in the store! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

reviews complain about the Tohsiba sound, its mono and the speaker is on the bottom?

I'm getting tempted by the Asus Eee PC 1008HA again now... dangit. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The sound isn't fantastic, but with earphones it's fine - i am not sure where the speaker is actually. But it's not stereo. As for the Asus eee - I don't know if I handled the 1008 model - the one I was looking at was $299 and compact, but I hated the keyboard so I suggest you handle it in a store if you can. By the way - this whole thing drove me totally crazy over the last weekend - no one machine had everything I wanted, and they're all close - but I am happy with this one. The model 100 was unbelievable - a laptop before they even had the word "laptop"! I had it in the hospital when my daughter was born in 1986 (same daughter!) with its 300 baud modem - and I was able to dial into our online campus from there to tell everyone about the baby - this before the web of course. But back to the point: I actually liked the HP a lot except for the mouse - i don't remember now if there were any other problems but I think it was the shorter life battery and the ram may not have been upgradable. I got my toshiba at Office Depot by the way. Anyway - good luck - let me know if you have other questions! Cheers Tvoz/talk 18:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, thank you for the quick response on the sound question. What i really want is the ASUS U20A A1, but there is no way I have that many pennies in my piggybank. *sigh* I'm with you - no one model has everything I want. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis page

Hi - I don't know what kind of knowledge you have of Onassis or how much interest you have, but I see that you've been fairly active on the talk page within the last year, and you seem to have an interest in maintaining its neutrality. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the comment I just posted to the Talk section, under "Problems with this article," to see if you can give any advice as to how to go about improving the article. As things currently stand, it is a biased mess, and someone of Onassis' historical significance deserves better than that!  :) Abootface (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up -- I'll take a look. Tvoz/talk 16:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Fall 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikis Take Manhattan (our cool team galleries)
• Streetfilms: Wikis Take Manhattan (our awesome video)

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

148 Lafayette Street

between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin That Cares

Hi Tvoz. I've read a lot of your stuff, which is why I'm approaching you. I think there's a huge BLP bias/vandalism/POV issue going on in Daniel Goldhagen article on Daniel Goldhagen. It's so extreme that a vandal type of person even deleted the name of Goldhagen's spouse, mention of his new book, link to a video of Goldhagen speaking. There's definitely an attempt on that page to skew the article to be anti-Goldhagen. And if you look at the history and the talk archive, it's been going on for years. I'm hoping a couple of admins with no particular axe to grind can take a look, and take action. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crm411 (talk • contribs)

Well, I am not an administrator, but I'll take a look - I don't have much knowledge of Goldhagen, but I'll see how it looks to me. Tvoz/talk 17:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

and thanks. I'm glad you like the pelican. I decided to make some user pages during a general disenchantment with other aspects of Wikipedia. I've commented at Debra Winger, and I think this is an example of ongoing work and activism and is more relevant than a one-off comment about Polanski. I think it fits well where it is, but could equally sit under the "Personal Life" section as it is non-actor related. Either way is fine with me. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Highly reliable sources

Without realizing it at first, used this source here. How about that! Wasted Time R (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Aha - he'll be pleased! He made it to three shows (including the last) in this latest leg - heard all 3 albums and loved them all! Tvoz/talk 21:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I liked the Born in the USA show that I went to, doing the albums in sequence definitely adds something. Saw three shows overall on the tour but didn't like it too much overall, for reasons hinted at in the WP article. Pictures I took during all three shows (and during previous tours) are up on WP in the tour articles and various song articles. All taken from the viewpoint of the common person! (i.e. not close to the stage :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the link about creating pages.

I have moved the Obama family draft to your page because I don't want to use too much bandwidth under my name. Frankly, having an XXXXX in the name looks silly. Thank you. PresChicago (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You are following me so you should stay away from me! You followed me to Derek Jeter. You contacted me on my user page first. So if anyone is bothering anyone, it is you. If you don't like that page, go ahead and delete it. It was created as an illustration of a proposal that I do not support. If you are accusing me of being your ex-wife, I am not. PresChicago (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Tvoz. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Being harrassed by a user) gets you there drekkly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And the non-issue is resolved. Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

← Wow. I'm going to forgo comment right now. Thanks fellas. Tvoz/talk 19:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Am I imagining things, or does User:PresChicago seem familiar? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

More and more with every edit. Thank you - I was hoping someone else would notice. Thought we had moved on from the good old days, but I should have known better. Next step? Tvoz/talk 03:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI please? Toddst1 (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Healthcare

Hi, I answered on my page. Not sure you whether you've seen it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured Photo?

Tvoz, the Cat Stevens photo, the black and white one up top of the article has been a Featured Photograph in Turkey, and I think someone nominated it in the Wikimedia Commons, so, I think the photographer should get some pleasure from basically signing away his photo to us-- please vote for the photo if it's possible. Here: [29] I just want to see a lot of generous people who continue to give to us be rewarded, even if just knowing something like this.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that it's been nominated, Leah. Tvoz/talk 08:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this legal or libel or something?

After leaving you the last note, I noticed a page was showing this photo, and it's here: [30] I'm really disturbed by this! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any libel, but I don't know if there are any restrictions on the use of the picture. User pages aren't really supposed to mimic articles, so it probably should at least have the {{userpage}} tag on it, but the picture is identified correctly as Cat Stevens, so if it's on Commons, it may be that anyone can use it. Lots of user pages have Obama's picture, for example, and I think it's considered ok. Best bet is for you to ask an admin or post a question on one of the admin noticeboards or Village Pump, as I don't know the answer. Tvoz/talk 08:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yusuf Islam

Dear Tvoz,

I am glad that I am getting in contact with somebody with a sense of fun and is an inclusionist. You might go on the news section of www.google.ie and type in Yusuf's name and see the very large amount of coverage that his recent concert in Dublin generated not just in Ireland but elsewhere in Europe. Given his comparatively large entry (and excellent) on Wikipedia one or two lines would I think be appropriate. Let me what you think and then tell me what you think, good jokes also welcome!We might then decide to reinstate the entry that I made a few days ago. I am very impressed with your barnstars!

Skreen (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - somehow I missed this comment. I'll take another look at this - I don't have a major problem with including the reaction of an audience to a concert if it had some kind of impact beyond that one night. But we have to keep in mind that this is a bio of his life, not a blog that catalogs events as they happen - if this particular reaction has had a lasting effect I would include it. If there was a lot of coverage, if it was something that was repeated at other concerts, if it is indicative of a more widespread response to him, then yes I'd agree with you that a mention would be appropriate. It seemed on first look to be an example of "recentism" and something that seemed important the day it happened might not be all that important in the longer run. But I'll take another look - I also may have been in a crabby mood that day... Thanks for the followup and sorry for taking so long to see it - and I do try to have fun here whenever possible! Tvoz/talk 18:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tvoz-

Gotta question. Would you glance at Rory Gallagher's article? Do you know of an editor here who can insert the proper grammar in the pronounciation of Gallagher's name? See how someone sounded it out on the first line of his biography? I think it needs someone's professional touch, and if I ever learned that stuff I forgot it decades ago! What do you think? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeesh - I looked at it - that's not the way they do it! Unfortunately I don't speak IPA and haven't ever looked at how to do that. Another one of those things I enjoy leaving to others. I can't think offhand of who knows how to do it, but maybe someone reading here will step up. And I'll look around. Tvoz/talk 18:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And I put a note into Wikipedia talk:IPA for English with this result. See what happens. Tvoz/talk 20:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sis. Looks MUCH better. I don't even read IPA much less speak it. I come across some mighty strange attempts at all kinds of things in articles, since I'm more a Wikignome 60% of the time, and cut deals for photos and edit the other 40%. That IPA issue only ranks a "4" on my weirdness scale, so thanks. Somebody must have paid attention during English grammar class! And, too, Rory Gallagher is Irish, so I'm not even sure if I've been pronouncing his name right. His article, and Jaco Pastorious are good examples of articles I feel should get real attention, because though they have died, I feel the contributions toward their genres of music have been remarkable. Just thought I'd mention what I'm doing. I haven't abandoned Yusuf, if needed for... whatever, I can't imagine, actually, just ask!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul Simon

Thanks for reinforcing my points about the Paul Simon article. Yes, it's an embarassment, but I aimed for diplomacy to appeal to like-minded editors without inciting the kind of exchange that flared up between Dcrasno and Baseball Bugs. Anyway, I'd be happy to join in the cleanup. To engage others, perhaps you might find some recruits by checking out the article's history for editors who have made positive contributions over time, then requesting their help as you did mine. One of the challenges is finding sources for more difficult fixes (worthwhile material that can't be re-worded without more background). Over the weekend, I'll see what I can dig up on the web, then I'll post the sources on the Paul Simon talk page. Allreet (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

See the References topic I added to Talk:Paul Simon. I'm currently editing a paper version of the Simon article to clean up minor issues and will insert these changes over the course of the coming week. Sometimes even a seemingly simple rewrite can be a bear if the sources aren't available, so the references I found should prove helpful, though more are needed for the long haul. Allreet (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a thorough review of everything up through 1976 and found very few items, mostly small, that needed correction. Clearly, you did a masterful job of editing out the extraneous and reworking the language. That's not empty praise. I usually don't have the heart for slash and burn and get bogged down in trying to salvage most of what's said. It takes forever to do that, and what you've done demonstrates it's not worth it. The rest of the article remains a mess. I'll make what few edits I have in the front, then attack the back sections. If I notice you're already working on a section, I'll just hop on the next one. At some point, a couple substantive issues need to be addressed, for example, the aparthied issue and one that was only touched on, his leaving Columbia for Warner Bros., but those can wait until later. The big issue is cites, and I'll start adding those for the sections you cleaned up. Allreet (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Phil Ochs

Nice work on Och's page. I thought you may like to take a look at the Phil Ochs "article" on Uncyclopedia (typing uncy in Google is enough to get one to the site), the comedy wiki. You may get a kick out of it. A side note, I once talked to Michael Ochs about the movie, and long ago they thought of asking k.d. lang to play the title role (this was year's before the recent multi-actor film on Dylan). Enjoy, Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, good to meet you. I've answered on my page. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

GAR notification

Letting you know as a major contributor to the article in question that I have opened a good article reassessment for the Cat Stevens article. You can read my comments at Talk:Cat Stevens/GA1. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I dreaded this day

Got ideas for the Cat Stevens review? Ones you think I should try to tackle? I've been currently trying to improve the Rory Gallagher article, which has been neglected from major edits since 2005 or so..?!! Lemme know. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

I've seen your good work around the project many many times, and I have always wondered why you weren't an administrator. Would you be willing to accept a nomination to become one? NW (Talk) 21:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have to pass - replied on your talk. Tvoz/talk 07:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Tvoz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 875 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Robert Price (attorney) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Bot, I created that stub over 3 years ago and I don't even remember doing it! Tvoz/talk 06:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cat Stevens review

I only took a fleeting glimpse at the article's review after adding to some of the album pages. Wondering what your thoughts were, since most of the fault is mine. I agree that the majority of Cat Stevens's success commercially was in his earliest years, although there isn't as much in the way of sources, (his site, the majicat site) and as you said, you can wear them out. But also I felt the music clips showed his progression from early to mid to current days. Far more than half of his life he's been a Muslim. I am part of the biography group in Wikipedia. Am I supposed to ignore that part of his biography, only because he wasn't as visible in the Western world? Cause in the Islamic world, he remained a big influence, as well as for people seeking spirituality and being intrigued by Yusuf's changes in life were also influenced by him? I think I'm confused between biography groups and musicians work groups here. What do you think? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Vonnegut quote re Pancake

Belated thanks for your kind note in December 2008. As you can tell by reading this, I don't log in at Wikipedia as much these days--maybe that will change in the new year. As for the books I review, mostly literary fiction and poetry. Hope this finds you well. --Beth Wellington (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I will take you off the list

sorry for any annoyances. your talk page seems very, very familiar. Ikip 08:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

good luck with your valuable edits. I am sorry to see that you left Article Rescue Squadron. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 16:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I will readd you. I thought <strong> was synonymous with <strike>. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 00:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

We have to remove a photo

Remember when I mentioned finding a photo on another Wikipedia-language website, but felt it looked like it was from a newspaper somewhere? We'll have to remove this from the Cat Stevens site: I'm telling you, just so you know why. I found this article: Return of the Cat, 30 years on --I haven't even looked it over for any useful information. As soon as I saw the photo credit right in the box--WHAT are those other Wikipedias thinking-- and what was I thinking to trust them--though I did such extensive searches for additional articles to use, I assumed the photo was OK. But it IS credited to the Associated Press. It does not get any more copyright violated than that. I'm removing it. Sorry. I'm looking for some additional photos from earlier times, primarily, once again. OUCH. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, always have to check the provenance. This is one of the reasons I stay away from photos here. Tvoz/talk 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yusuf and more

Tvoz, you never replied to my last question here-- you on a break from talking? I'm trying to find things I can fix and help with on the Cat Stevens article. Thus far, I've uploaded missing song covers from those pages and added some text and references to them. Also, a few references to bolster the main page, and removed a few dead links with good ones. I wonder if work done on the album and song pages helps the article as a whole overall to regain it's GA ranking? Is there anything there that you are aware of that could help his article? Oh, and I removed the photo that I (recently) found credited to UPI from one of the other language Wikipedias (the one you said you hoped we could keep but I thought looked like it was from some newspaper). Also, I've found another recent photo of him, and am 95% feeling we'll have that, too. I also have the same two photos from his PR people- one great head shot of him young, and the other, of him older. Do you or do you know someone with an ORTIS account? Normally, I only upload from Flickr. Still not sure what to do with these. If you send me an email, I can attach the photos so you can get a look. Oh, another thing; can you recommend someone who can show me where to find reviews and the proper way to add them to album pages? I sorely need the guidance at least once, esp. for albums that are ah, "vintage" ;))! ..as well as those that are recent, for the Yusuf album and other stuff. There are some lovely performances with Yusuf and Alun Davies (MY KINGDOM for a photo of Davies, (AND Nicky Hopkins, Andy Low-Fairweather, Gram Parsons, and Stevie Ray Vaughn off the top of my head) but Yusuf and Davies played with Fairport Convention at their Cropredy Festival --just lovely, and Yusuf was so funny, and the twinkle is back in his eye. ... finally! For your enjoyment: [31] [32]. There are more if you look. Really nice. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts I'll place here and below.

Well, I didn't completely disagree with some of the GAR comments - for example I've also made the point before, as you'll recall, that in my view there may be too much emphasis on his life as Yusuf. I think of course that it should be in the article to some degree, but as I've said, his main notability and fame comes from his musical career, not his life as an educator or philanthropist. And to the extent that there has been a lot of press attention to some of the things he's alleged to have said or done in recent years no doubt comes from the fact that he is a former rock star, now converted to a different way of life. So when the GAR reader says that there's something off about the percentage of the article that is dedicated to his religious views, etc., I don't really disagree. The way to address this is not clear to me, but we might reduce the listings of recent appearances unless there's something noteworthy about them -like his being denied entry to the US again.

As to your questions: no, as far as I know, the quality of the subarticles does not have an impact on the determination of the main article's GA status. Good to have them improved, but I don't think their quality will affect whether or not this article is considered GA.

Subarticles: Too bad, though I feel the songs and albums either cited or at least included in the text should all be represented (Indian Ocean?) and tight, or at least factual. Matthew and Son for example, has Davies listed among the personnel, six years before they met!

As for the photo stuff, once again, as a rule I don't do photos here as I can't deal with the somewhat arbitrary (in my view) rules about what some people think is legitimate fair use, etc. Not only do I not have an account there, I have no idea what ORTIS is. Leah, no matter how many times you ask me I have the same answer: trust me when I say I am not the person to ask photo questions of.

Arbitrary! Good grief, they're Nazis in Commons! I know most of the rules re: photos except ORTIS- it's a permit to vouch that a proffered photo via email from an outside source Creative Commons license required to upload to Commons. I never bothered with that and should now. I HAVE uploaded and placed over 300-400 photos -half the list is on my user site. If you ever want to know any photo stuff, ask- I just never know what new you've learned!

As for reviews - they are no different from any source material. If they are online, great, you know how to add the citation. But we are not required to use sources that are retrievable online, so if you find paper copies of music magazines, etc., that have reviews, you are welcome to quote from them and give proper bibliographic citation information, just no URL link. There's nothing different about online or online sources other than the URL. Where to find them? Good question! Libraries, tag sales, who knows? Maybe Rolling Stone has a searchable archive. etc. Perhaps one of the WikiProject music work groups has experience with this.

I addressed a few of the concerns that the reader raised when he posted, like the consolidation of some single sentence paragraphs, but I haven't had a chance to look at it in further detail. What I'd suggest is to go through his comments and see if any seem reasonable and easy to fix, and do those. But we're not required to go along with one reviewer's opinion on this - this is why the GA/FA status is not something I usually get too excited about. I don't agree with him, by the way, about the music clips - I don't think that there are too many.

I am happy you agree! The music clips mark changes in his sound, and should stay, and I'll fight that, if it's all left standing. What does this mean? You lost me there in that sentence starting with the "on this 0 this is why"

I had dropped the dash accidentally - sentence should read But we're not required to go along with one reviewer's opinion on this - this is why the GA/FA status is not something I usually get too excited about. Tvoz/talk 04:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Tvoz/talk 21:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the complaints re: the article. Yes, there should be more re: the early period. The contact, his A&R man emailed the (still not used) photos -one young, one recent. It seems The primary article name changed from Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam? It's WP policy to place the most recent pic in the infobox, but here I disagree: more people identify him as Cat Stevens. I placed it at "Return to Music" - as you said, he's more famous in the Western world for his musical career. Thus, I feel that the early years need beefing up, with more information on his later Cat Stevens albums or the songs on it, and, as you suggested, his newest work, and retrospective interviews as well. I think these would be prudent steps:

1. His song and subsequent work with Indian Ocean appears to be a turning point in both his music and view of it, sounding more like Tea for the Tillerman than anything previous to the pinnacle of his career. I don't know how to properly assemble album articles beyond Stub class. If you can find someone to teach me, I'll happily work on it.
2. The Majicat site is not only back up, but he himself has added maybe 3x the info that was previously there, from periodicals that can be tracked down in some cases. There must be more guitar magazines, and fanzines with actual interviews still around from Stevens' youth. Rolling Stone is just one of many, I'd think.
3. I also think that more can be added to his early years, I still want a photo and info of Alun Davies (musician)|Alun Davies]]. Yusuf's 2009 performance at the Cropredy Festival was introduced by Gerry Conway, Stevens' former drummer, (now, like Davies) a part of Fairport Convention and he was accompanied by Davies, and Richard Thompson. Which brings me to wonder, don't you think Stevens' core backing band should be mentioned by name in the text- those who, other than the Foreigner album, were his mainstay, a tight-knit and devoted group to him, and merited their own pages in Majicat.com. I'll find the reference!
4. Last, after his top three albums, very little is in the main text about them, songs from them, like "Oh Very Young", and quite a few more. I think this is what needs expansion. There are interveiws with him now (some on You Tube) regarding his feelings towards the albums, songs, etc. There are some great refs regarding Yusuf's future, saying he planned touring, not b/c he needed the money- it would go to charity, but that he felt he needed to re-establish a rapport with fans who were cut off too quick so long ago, and more about him viewing his role as a bridge between his past and present. Some of this is repetitive-sorry. My email is open should you wish to quit these long talk pages!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick point: not sure what you meant above, but to be clear, I will not go along with a change in the primary name of the article. I feel strongly that it must remain as Cat Stevens, with Yusuf Islam as a redirect to Cat Stevens, as it has been. Tvoz/talk 04:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes

Hi, Tvoz. You reviewed List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes a year ago at WP:FLC. I've recently returned to Wikipedia and found the page to be a complete mess.[33] I've spent the morning redoing the page, and left a message on the talk page. If you wish to comment, feel free. Practices change all the time, and I haven't kept myself up to date with them all, so I suspect you're more versed with current article structure, lists and whatnot than I am. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't looked at the page since October when it still looked pretty much the way it had when the last major edits were made, such as incorporating the list of which lead character pair is featured. So my not commenting on changes that were made subsequently doesn't mean I liked them or didn't. But I do prefer it the way you reverted it, and said so on Talk yesterday. I'm not up on current practices at all, so I'm in the same boat as you are. Cheers Tvoz/talk 16:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping us improve wikipedia.

This user helped promote Inauguration of Barack Obama to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Larry King

Thanks for bringing the issue up at my talk page. Per the format guideline for the "spouse" field listed at Template:Infobox_actor and all other infoboxes, the only information to be entered in this field would be "Firstname Lastname (Year–Year)" or "Firstname Lastname (Year–present)". If you think putting simply "present" might confuse well-intended editors into changing it to "2010", we can add a note to the end (that would only be visible during editing) indicating that this should not be changed until a divorce has been finalized. The final text would then say:

[[Shawn Southwick]] (1997–present) <!--please do not change "present" to "2010" until a divorce is finalized-->

Let me know what you think of this, thanks. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 12:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bronx High School of Science

Why shouldn't the alumni be in another section? You never gave a reason on the discussion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did give reasons - see the section above your announcement - "Suggestion to editors" and I've added some more comments. Tvoz/talk 06:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Hello, today (May 20) you added some info to the Rand Paul article about winning the primary, with the two refs named "primarywin1" and "primarywin2" but you did not actually add the references. Could you please add the sources you are using? Thanks. - Salamurai (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry! thanks for the note - I had added those refs to the senate campaign article and was in a hurry - I thought I had them in Rand Paul too. Will fix! Tvoz/talk 06:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Tvoz!

Hey there stranger! Great to hear from you again --- I'm devoting more and more time to Wikipedia as of late. Will be graduating next semester and have already gotten a head start on my masters. You're advice from over 3 years ago went farther than you will ever know!--rocketrye12 ^{talk/contribs} 18:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Tvoz/talk 22:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Palin

See this and this "I thought I'd be somewhere warm at college with my friends..." I've since removed it since you think it's not so notable. ★Dasani★ 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Missing edit summary

It isn't completely obvious why you reverted this edit. It would be helpful to others if you used a descriptive edit summary at least in cases where it won't be abundantly clear to even a dullard like me. --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, sorry - was using new 'pending revisions' process and didn't realize it would go through before having a chance to add a summary. I removed it because I question the assertion that this particular book is "most notable" and therefore appropriate to be singled out in the text - there's some question about self-promotion here. Tvoz/talk 15:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree on that point! I noticed your revert because I edit conflicted with you while I was attempting to make an edit removing the "most notable" and changing it into a such as myself. Sounds good, thanks! --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bronx Science Talk

Can you check the talk page please? i just made a new proposition to take out the stuff you wanted to. --Iankap99 (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me - I have no objections if you wish to summarize those sections. Thanks for pointing me there. Tvoz/talk 15:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of new to editing, do i need consensus to do this? And if so, how many people agreeing constitutes consensus. --Iankap99 (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it kind of depends on the page and how contentious it is - there's no actual number needed for consensus, but generally since you posted a note on Talk about this (which was a good thing to do), if no one has spoken up to object in a few days you can go ahead and try it, but keep an eye out for objections and be ready to discuss. I've been editing this page for quite a while and I think from time to time there's been some sentiment about keeping everything in those sections there, but a comprehensive prose section or group of sections that capture the breadth and diversity of these student opportunities should be ok. In other words, saying something like "Bronx Science has many teams including baseball, basketball, and ultimate frisbee" would not be enough. Same for the clubs and the events. This wouldn't be a summary section, but more a translation of the lists into prose form. Not an easy project, but worth a try. In general about consensus - sometimes the bold edit is just what a page needs, and the people who regularly edit there will see it as an improvement and a jumping-off place and will be happy for the fresh eyes brought to it. But just lopping off a section of a page is bound to be a problem, so discussion leading to consensus would be best. It's not a vote - consensus usually involves compromise and means general agreement, not majority rule. It's kind of subtle, but worth understanding because it is how everything is supposed to work around here. WP:CONSENSUS is a good thing to read - and there are a number of other pieces talking about aspects of this - it's that fundamental. Hope this helps. Tvoz/talk 13:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok can you take a look at the sports teams now?--Iankap99 (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bristol's name

Does anything belong in that article? Gwen Stefani said the same thing but I thought it would be appropriate for Bristol, and a lot of celeb articles read "Prior to becoming famous, ___ dreamed of becoming ___"

★Dasani★ 21:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

First, I'm not going to make an argument in favor of the article's existence at all (if that's what you mean by your first sentence), as I think it's marginal at best, but I can live with it. Some number of readers are likely to come here looking for information about her so I suppose it seems a little bit better to have her own article than to bog down her mother's with minutiae about Bristol. But just because something can be sourced does not mean it is necessarily notable, and I wouldn't want to pad this article with trivial points as a rationale for its existence. About Bristol's name, who really cares why she - a very minor celebrity at best - was given that name, but if we're going to follow the source and say she's named after Bristol Bay and Bristol Connecticut, surely we need to explain why those two places have any significance to the Palin family. As for "prior to becoming famous..." if you are talking about the point that she thought she'd go to college after high school, that again is not such a significant point, but in any case we can't say, from the People article, that she meant the lower 48 when she said "somewhere warm". Probably yes, but that's OR. so I removed it. More importantly, again, what is notable about this? Tvoz/talk 23:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering an FA has such information (as well as articles about far more important issues), it's funny that an article of much lesser standard (albeit less famous person) lacks it. You removed a few lines, stating, "It's not important -- doesn't belong in the article" I'm asking what DOES? Not questioning the existent of her own Wikipedia page, as the talk page has debated that before. ★Dasani★ 15:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really: full length (featured or not) articles go into much greater detail than this article which is all of around 700 words of "readable prose". A minor factoid about the derivation of a subject's name, or what they dreamed of doing before their lives took the path that led them to fame/notability, makes more sense in those longer articles to be included. In this article the name thing takes on more weight than it is worth, in relation to the length and depth of the rest of the article. But in any case, I didn't remove the name thing, I clarified it - the way it read before just stated that she was named after two seemingly random cities. At least now we explain why that might have been the case. As for the plans after high school, I put in a phrase about it, again with some context, but without the assumption that she was planning to attend school in the lower 48 which the cited piece did not explicitly say. To your larger question: what should be in this article? I don't really think this article should be in the encyclopedia at all, based on her very minor celebrity-hood, but I've already said why I can live with it. What should be in the article are notable, cited facts that are important to the story of her life, such as it is - the things that readers should know in order to more fully understand who she is and why she is important - like any of our biographical pieces.. Preferably the references should have some third-party analysis behind them, some assessment of the notability of the subject and his or her place in society - not exactly what we're seeing here. That's why I question whether a biography of her is viable at all, but so be it, for now anyway. Tvoz/talk 18:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of HappySad Records

A tag has been placed on HappySad Records requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Codf1977 (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice - I've expanded the stub to indicate its significance, and I see that you removed the tag, so thanks for that too. Hope you find it more acceptable now. Tvoz/talk 18:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

David Hays

Hi Tina,

I've finally gotten around to making an entry for Dave. Hope things are going well with you and Paul.

Bill Benzon (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Tina,

I used Dave's full name because that's what I've seen with other bio entries, though I certainly didn't do any systematic looking, but, yes, David G. is generally how his full name has been stated. I also know about the inline citation thing, but will ignore it if and until someone threatens to remove the article for that violation of Wiki anal retentive style. The fact is, the mere fact that I have written the bio is a violation of Wiki best practices, as I am a very interested party and thus prone to lapses in objectivity. Hence, now that there's something there, I want to keep hands off. As for where born and relations, well, some of that is in the NYTimes obit.

Bill Benzon (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ringo's Party

Brilliant! :) --andreasegde (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And for my loyal readers, if any, here... http://music-mix.ew.com/2010/07/08/ringo-starr-birthday-mccartney/ Cheers! Tvoz/talk 16:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Lovely, lovely, lovely, and brilliant. --andreasegde (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Cunt and "7 Dirty Words"

Is the word really "taboo" generally or just on networked stations? I ask because there are sourced examples of both networked and PBS in the article, although admittedly not common. Some reference to FCC(?) broadcasting standards might be useful in clarifying the exact position. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much taboo everywhere other than the so-called premium pay cable stations like HBO and Showtime which is where the examples in the article are from. (PBS is broadcast, and I don't expect you'd hear 'cunt' there.) Cable in general is not subject to the FCC restrictions - but technically "broadcast" means not only network - it's any station that is traditionally broadcast over the public airways (even when they are actually delivered by cable), so includes local tv stations that may not be affiliated with one network. The FCC has no jurisdiction over pure cable or premium pay channels like HBO and Showtime which is where you'd find words that are still considered obscene (by the FCC) and banned from broadcast tv. With the exception of Jane Fonda's Today (news) show broadcast interview, I'm not aware of 'cunt' on any broadcast tv. Several of the other 6 words have slowly started appearing on regular cable, but most still not on broadcast, and 'cunt' specifically is still pretty much taboo other than on premium pay cable. Even movies with "language" are often bleeped or overdubbed on regular cable. (HBO, Showtime and the other premium cable stations would present the movies without bleeping however.) I'll see if I can find a reference that helps. Tvoz/talk 07:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that Fonda's interview was live, so her utterance of "cunt" was not a decision on the part of the network, but rather an unintended consequence of live news shows not having the five second delay, thereby endangering our morals and threatening our very existence... I would bet that it was bleeped when the show aired on the West coast on tape delay due to the time zone difference, but I don't actually know for sure. Tvoz/talk 15:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is US-centric ;-) I believe (but don't have the time to document) that all 7 words have showed up as appropriate on the CBC radio & TV: "Canada's public broadcaster". Bellagio99 (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's US-centric - the sentences we're talking about are about US television! (No mention in the article about a Canadian liberal approach to language on tv - would be a good addition if you want to do it.) Tvoz/talk 15:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Twersky

Thanks. I was surprised we didn't have an article about him.

And w/r/t being an admin, it really is no big deal. I do a lot of CSD deletions and get a lot of complaints about it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton

I'm going to wrap up my input within a day or two because I need to move on to something I've been neglecting. I think the article is growing in such a way that it might attain GA. Why don't you polish it up and submit it? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton, redux /surname

Tvoz, I understand your desire to keep Chelsea's entry in compliance with Wikipeda (and by extension, as factual as it can be ) calling her "Chelsea Clinton" is not accurate anymore. She's married, and per common knowledge, she's got a new last name now. No, we don't know if it's just her husband's last name or if it's her madien last name - her husband's last name, but her last name has changed, no citation is needed for it, it's common knowledge just like it's common knowledge that she's a female. We can't call her "Clinton" anymore, it would technically violate BLP as it's no longer accurate, but neither is a reference available for her official married last name, but both last names could be included that way, we have a reference for her maiden name and acknowledge the RS that show she was married by using her husbands last name (again, per common knowledge). I did update her page to reflect this. Think about blp before you change it again. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Kosh, I could not disagree with you more. First we don't edit by "common knowledge" regarding things like peoples' names - we edit by sources. And in fact it is not common knowledge that when a woman marries her name automatically changes. In fact, in New York State where she - and I, 34 years ago - was married, the law is that one's name is what one uses - if you marry and start using your husband's name, consistently, it is your name, but you have to go through steps to have your legal documents changed to that new name. If you marry and do not change your driver's license, passport, etc., and if you consistently continue to use your birth name (please, spare me the idiotic word "maiden" when we're talking about a 30 year old woman), that is your name. You do not have to file any papers to retain your name - it is your name. You do not have to have it legally changed "back" - you just keep using your name, just like the man does. Heavens. Even the IRS understands this correctly. We simply do not know what Chelsea Clinton has decided about her name - we could guess that as her mother before her until Arkansas politics intervened, she is a modern woman who will keep her name, but we're also not in the business of guessing. So I vehemently oppose making this change here until we see in reliable sources that she has chosen to take her husband's name, or a version of it or something else entirely. You do not know if she is now calling herself Chelsea Clinton, Chelsea Mezvinsky, Chelsea Clinton-Mezvinsky, Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky, or Chelsea Smith. So you are being presumptuous, at present, in making the change - and, I might add, a bit offensive, although you probably didn't intend that.

Secondly, invoking BLP is ridiculous. Do you actually understand what BLP policy is about? Do you actually think that it is defamatory to leave a woman's name as her original name until we hear otherwise? In some circles it might be considered defamatory to assume that she changed her name - but I am not saying that either. I am saying that with full knowledge and understanding of BLP policy, this has nothing at all to do with it, and I reject the argument. So, with all respect, her name reinstated as her name is correct. I will be glad to change it if and when we know that she has changed it - she decides her name, not you, not me, not Wikipedia.

Thanks for leaving me a note, however, and I will be happy to discuss this with you and anyone else - I'll copy this to the article talk page where it will get a wider audience. Tvoz/talk 18:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton /pictures

I agree with you. Yes, the pictures are fine. They're lovely. They're free. But they were taken within a matter of days of each another and depict the same subject: Chelsea speaking on behalf of her mother. Is it necessary to have two such pictues in the article? Why? Please explain. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

-

The pictures are months apart, not days, for the record - but in any case do you know of policy here that supports your point? Because i am not aware of any. One picture is for the infobox - its primary purpose is to give the best available shot of what the subject looks like, regardless of what text it might also illustrate. I would not object to shortening the caption, but don't really see any need to do so. The other picture directly illustrates one of the major sections of the article, so is appropriate to be next to that text. Tvoz/talk 05:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

One pic is Feb 2002 and the other is April 2002 making them days or at most weeks apart. Nonetheless, they depict exactly the same thing - Chelsea speaking on her mother's behalf. The inclusion of two such pics in a very short article, and, as you mentioned, likely headed for AfD, won't help and sets a bad example for other editors possibly looking for layout models. The infobox pic is suggestive - wide open mouth and bulbous microphone. Call me old-fashioned, but it actually excites disgust and mirth. This is a pic we can live without for at least two reasons, whether it's free, fine, long standing, or otherwise. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you deliberately misunderstand everything that is said? I said in edit summary regarding your inclusion of the exact time that the marriage took place: (→Engagement and marriage: the time is not necessary in her bio - save such minute detail for the dedicated article if it survives afd). The "dedicated article" I was talking about, which is currently up in AfD, is Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding. I was saying that minute details like the time of the marriage and other such details do not belong in Chelsea Clinton's biography, and if they belong anywhere it could be in the sub-article that is specifically about their wedding, if it survives AfD. How you could characterize Chelsea Clinton as "a very short article" or suggest that it it "likely headed for AfD" is really beyond me. It is not short and there is no way it will be deleted. As for the infobox picture itself, we obviously disagree - and you said a few paragraphs up that you thought the pictures were "lovely". So now the infobox picture "excites mirth and disgust"? Actually, I like that one much more than the other one for clarity of view of her face. I think you need to re-examine your own POV that you have very clearly brought to your editing of this article. And as for the picture being "long-standing", that is a way of gently saying that many editors have looked at it over time and you are the only one who has said that the picture is "suggestive" or inappropriate in any way, and that wasn't your argument in the first place anyway, so I am starting to think you just have issues with your changes being reverted. And February to April is two months, not days. Not that that makes any difference at all - Caroline Kennedy has 2 pictures that are 7 days apart and illustrate the same thing. And the editors there felt that having both pictures enhanced the article. Here we make the point more than once that Chelsea made many appearances across the country, so having more than one actually makes sense in illustration of that fact - indeed, I'd even add another one or two if we found good ones. More illos are considered a positive when an article is up for GA/FA, by the way. So I reject both your first argument and your second - I simply think you're wrong. Feel free to discuss it on the article talk page if you feel so strongly about it, and elicit the views of other editors. I note that as far as I've seen you are the only one who has removed the infobox shot or objected to having the two. Tvoz/talk 07:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton rewriting/reverting

I'm wondering why you insistently revert my work? The brief edit summaries are not enough to satisfy my curiousity and I seek a more in depth explanation. I left the article once out of frustration only to have you ask me to reconsider and return. I return and you insistently revert, rephrase, delete, and otherwise exercise control over every aspect of the article as (apparently) some sort of self-appointed "Editor-in-Chief". I don't understand and find such behavior disruptive. Please explain. I need to know why we are expected to abide by your judgement on every aspect the article. I wonder if there's a teasing, taunting "ownership" issue going on here? You did say you've worked on the article a long time and I'm wondering if you feel your territory is being invaded. I hate to think that and would like that nightmare laid to rest. Please give me some reassurance that you do not have ownership issues. Only you can help! Please do. Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Susanne, I have to tell you I find this comment borderline insulting. "Teasing", "taunting"? Where do you see that? Ask anyone who has edited with me if they'd describe my comments that way. With all respect, what you seem to be saying is that you have the ownership problem. If you'll look again, you'll see that I'm not the only one reverting some of your edits, so you might think about why that is. I asked you to reconsider leaving because, as I said then, I think you are a good writer and you were overreacting to the reverts that three editors made to material you inappropriately posted about on AN/I. I thought we would be able to work together, but honestly at this point I think maybe you were right, that you should move on to something else. I don't own this or any article, and I certainly don't think I'm "editor in chief", which would be pretty delusional on Wikipedia. I mentioned that I've been working on this article for several years, and also on numerous other articles related to personalities connected to the past Presidential election including the candidates, family members etc., to indicate that I am not just passing by and reverting changes willy-nilly - I have knowledge of the subject and a sense of how these articles have been shaped and edited for a long time, so I'm not "insistently reverting" your work - in fact I found much of what you have done to be a big improvement to what was a sketchy piece before the recent influx of source material became available. But I also wonder if you have brought a POV to your editing whereby you look for material to insert that puts her in a negative light with an over-reliance on tabloid-ish, celebrity, gossipy sources which are not the neutral reliable sources we want to be using. Balance does not mean for every positive thing said we need to have a negative - it just doesn't work that way. So I don't know what to tell you - this article is not my work and not your work - like all of the encyclopedia it is a collaborative effort which means that everyone's additions are subject to rephrasing, rewriting, reverting, reinstating, and so on. I'm not rephrasing your work, I'm looking at the words that are there and editing them as I think they should be. I try to leave edit summaries to explain why I'm making changes (you could do more of that) and when there's an issue or disagreement that calls out for more discussion I post on talk and try to reach a consensus of the editors who are participating here. (A recent example would be the talk page discussion of her surname.) I'm sorry if this is not a comfortable process for you, but it is the way it is - especially on articles about American politics and its associated characters. (Although I have to say I have been witness to much more bloodletting on articles about The Beatles.) You are more than welcome to edit any article you want to edit, but you need to accept that the words you put on the page may well be gone before you can catch your breath - and it's not a reflection on you or your talents. But discussion on Talk is always an option. Tvoz/talk 07:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In less than one week, this editor has performed 121 edits to the article, and has taken another editor to both the AN/I board and the 3RR board. I surely guarantee that if a "collaborative" mindset is not realized, this editor is going down a very "bumpy" road. Talk it out: and not about WP:OWN. It's a slippery slope... Doc9871 (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Some folks get it, some folks don't. Tvoz/talk 08:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? (chuckle) ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's used in the source. Modify the snarl. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to, and don't appreciate your tone. Tvoz/talk 06:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Or... "You talkin' to me?" I'll stick to policy, and will quickly find it if someone else doesn't first. Since you've randomly entered my flighty "interest zone", it's probably best that you do the same. Could you expand on your above comment, please, Susanne2009NYC?

Once again, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Tvoz/talk 06:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What is used in the source? And what's up with the "snarl" thing? Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't realize it but in trimming the Chelsea Clinton campaign section to the bare bones you are actually enhancing the negativity. Most Americans feel it is a fundamental right (freedom of speech and all that) to ask a politician or his/her deputy any pertinent question without being rebuffed or dismissed out of hand. In trimming the article, you are presenting Chelsea as an arrogant snob out of sync with the fundamental rights of all Americans. The fact that she rebuffed a well-meaning little kid is very damaging to CC's presentation in this article. It might be best to delete all the negative material - the little kid, David Shuster, and the university student - whether these were top news stories or not. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC I think the several negative incidents that present Chelasea and her parents poorly can be removed without damging the section. They are superfluous and present the Clintons as basically arrogant snobs above our fundamental rights (we are politicians but we don't have to answer questions from the American people). Chelsea couldn't answer a little kid's simple question, the Clintons got a journalist suspended because he was exercising freedom of speech and press, and Chelsea rebuffed a university student because she was unprepared. It would be best to eliminate these three incidents as they do nothing to present the Clintons in a positive light whether the incidents are true or not. We can revise this material to the the last trumpet but they will always present the Clintons in a bad light. Best to remove them. I've rewritten the section. It's on the article talk page. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Susanne, the comments you make pretending to be sympathetic are repeatedly snide, negative comments about the Clintons. You clearly have a sarcastic, negative POV on the subject, poorly disguised as wanting to present them "in a positive light". We are supposed to be neutral, not present them in a positive or negative light - you have been told that over and over, yet you continue to do it. You are the one inserting negativity, in discussion and by implication in your editing and it is becoming tedious. The two preceding comments by you here are perfect examples. You, and only you, use the words "arrogant snob", for example. Please find something else to do - this is going nowhere. And I'd prefer not having this side discussion on my Talk page - this is about the article, so keep it there. Tvoz/talk 01:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Arrogant snobs" is an idiom and is not my take on the Clintons. But this is how a general reader of the article could interpret these revisions. Upon reflection, I think the three incidents in the campaign section should be deleted. The incidents are supersensitive and almost any reader would come to the conclusion that the Clinton family does not wholly support free speech or freedom of the press. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, only someone with an agenda. Please keep this on the article's talk page, not here. Tvoz/talk 04:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Commanding other Editors

No matter how frustrated you may become, please consider not commanding other editors: "Stop this... you are wasting our time." It smacks of WP:OWN. John2510 (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, WP:OWN!. This accusation is tossed around so much on WP it's kinda sad, really. "Our" time is the community's time, not just Tvoz's. He has urged several times that this be taken to the talk page of the article... yet here you are behind Suzanne2009NYC. He can "command" anyone not to comment on this particular page, you know, and erase any and all posts from it, if desired. I'm still on the sidelines on this one, but if his wishes are not met concerning the furtherance of this discussion on the article's talk page (where it belongs) instead of his page: problems may potentially arise. Take it to article talk (or AN/I, RfC/U, etc. if you believe he's in error: I don't really think he is). "I command you to!" (snicker) Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, he "can" do as he pleases. Wikipedia allows all editors that power, in the abstract. I only suggested he consider avoiding such behavior, and posted on his talk page out of discretion. I believe your "problems may potentially arise" comment is similarly inappropriate under Wikipedia standards. John2510 (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay: "problems could arise." Somewhere, somehow. You're accusing Tvoz of ownership of this article - do you have evidence to support it? Keep the talk centralized on the article talk page, please (since it is directly related to this post): you can accuse him there of ownership, harassment, POV editing... and any other things. People will chime in, I'm sure... Doc9871 (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Commanding an editor not to contribute to an article is about the clearest evidence of WP:OWN as anyone could possibly imagine. I'll keep talk about an article on the article page (where it belongs) and talk about an editor's inappropriate editing tactics on the editor's talk page (where it belongs). John2510 (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

When an editor's contributions to an article fail WP:Consensus: consensus wins, not the editor wishing to contribute. You're here because of the dispute at Chelsea Clinton - heck, a huge percentage of your edits are devoted to this! So far, I'm certainly seeing consensus swaying one way. I like your Moxie, kid; but you really need to start backing up your accusations with WP:DIFFS if you want them to go anywhere. I'm not one of the "kinder, gentler" editors on this project, and I can be quite "dogged" if I see any sort of socking/SPA's/"POV pushing". Inappropriate editing tactics notwithstanding... Doc9871 (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Tvoz, please feel free to kick us off the page: I'm sorry I'm somehow continuing this discussion. For the topic at hand - we go to Chelsea Clinton. For editor behavior... my talk is always open! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

← 1. John, I stand behind my comments to Susanne here and on the article talk page. I have been patient and respectful in the face of baseless accusations from her/him, and I have tried to work with this editor. But when I see what seems to me to be trolling I am going to call it out. Saying that you want a specific edit, the edit is made, then you say you think that edit is the problem - in the span of 2 hours - is pointy and, in light of all of her/his edits and commentary, trolling. So I said so, and suggested she/he "stop it" and "find something else to do". (I think calling this a "command" is a bit much.) I change my mind about edits too, but when I do I acknowledge it - this is a pattern with Susanne, where it seems to be more a matter of getting people to jump through hoops than actually wanting to improve the article. And the clear biases disguised as wanting to "protect" the subject from negative portrayals are actually laughable. As I told Susanne, we're not here to portray the subject negatively or positively, we are here to portray her neutrally.

2. It's ok with me that the above exchange with you and Doc is here, but I asked Susanne to not put her/his comments about the Clintons here any more since in my view she/he has moved into trolling and if it's going to happen, let it happen on the article talk page where other editors will see it. I've been here a long time, and I've encountered other agenda-driven editors, which I believe this to be a case of, who operate by overwhelming other editors with many edits, contradictory edits, putting material in, complaining about it, taking it out, putting it back, all with little or no explanation. Then when called on it, they drown you in commentary. I call it "bully" editing, trying to wear down others so their POV can prevail, and they usually are pretty good at appearing to just be reasonably editing. I haven't decided if I see Susanne as a bully editor yet, but I do see serious issues here and I don't choose to play it out on my talk page. I don;t particularly care to debate it with you either - as Doc said, if you have a specific accusation to make, please make it.

3. It's "she ", not "he". Me, that is. No problem, just saying. Tvoz/talk 18:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I realized that after-the-fact. I apologize. Also... I appreciate that we compromised on the recent edit and regret getting off on the wrong foot. I think we both bring our own biases to our efforts to achieve (what we each perceive to be) NPOV. John2510 (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's ok, I've been called worse than "he". And I'm glad we were able to compromise too- indeed we all bring our biases to everything we do, but most of us either don't discuss them or perhaps admit to them - it's the ones who protest that they are doing one thing when they are clearly doing another that I'm concerned about. Tvoz/talk 05:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Shiny, happy people holding hands..." ;> Doc9871 (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

indeed! Tvoz/talk 15:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Phillip Markoff / Craiglist Killer

Why do you make all kinds of reverts w/o discussing in the talk page? Ricardo Santiago (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was returning the heading to the way it's been standing for a long time by consensus - there's no problem with your making your edits in the first place, but when I reverted them (once) with explanation you probably should have posted your talk page notes and waited to hear what other editors think rather than reverting my reversion and posting on talk at the same time. See article talk for replies to yours. Tvoz/talk 01:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hi Tvoz. I think your revert there was a bad call. Therock40756 has been bullying his changes through since yesterday, and I think you rewarded him by reverting to his version (he's made 3 outright reversions, but if you look at his edit you'll see he's made many more than that).

If anybody needs to develop consensus on the Talk page, it's Therock40756. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn - I misread the edit. Thanks for coming here - I have reverted myself. Tvoz/talk 03:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a million. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion makes a lot of sense. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. And there's no need to beat yourself up. We all make mistakes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

hahaha, for sure - some being worse than others... Tvoz/talk 21:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Accidental reversion

Oops, I apologise for vandal-reverting you on the Leslie Lynch King, Sr. article, it was a complete mistake! KaySL (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for the note. I assume you'll revert your reversion? Tvoz/talk 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

All done ;) KaySL (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - as you can see above, it happens to all of us! Tvoz/talk 16:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"read the source before throwing on tags"

Yeah, actually, I did. The Wikipedia article claims that there were 2,977 casualties. The source claims that there were more than 6,000. That is a contradiction. The article does not clarify the reason for the contradiction. The tag applies perfectly. Thanks for the snarky mini-lecture, though, that was constructive. Minaker (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if that was snarky, and if this reply is, but the source is from September 30, 2001 and the point being made in our article is that at that time it was believed that over 6,000 people had died - which is what that September 30, 2001 source says. The relevant quote from the source is "The death toll from those attacks is estimated at more than 6,000." The sentence referring to it in our article is "Weeks after the attack, the estimated death toll was over 6,000." Perhaps that could be phrased a bit clearer, but it in no way contradicts anything. Tvoz/talk 03:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You say "tomayto", I say "tomahto"...

...AKA Female vs. Women: This CFD just closed -- I'm sure you'll approve of the outcome. I can't for the life of me explain why it didn't occur to me to tell you about it 'til now... some sort of brain malfunction, apparently! :) Cgingold (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

AHA! You are learning, CG! (Would anyone agree to have a category named "Men Comics Artists" or "Polish Men Writers" The tide will turn back to sanity on this - if I convinced you at all, then there is hope! thanks for letting me know even after the fact - should keep an eye out for others. Hope all's well! Tvoz/talk 16:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hosue episodes

Thanks for your comments about TenPoundHammer's unilateral and undiscussed action to remove virtually all episode articles. You might note that he/she has removed some with proper sourcing. I have reverted some of those, but I don't intend to get into an edit war. If I had the time I would add sources and restore them. I may work on that a bit at a time. Thanks again. Cresix (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have known about it at all, except that I had a load of the episodes on my watchlist because of some minor fixes I did a while ago - when I see dozens of redirects I know something's up. I don't have much if anything really invested in these articles, but other people have done a lot of work on them and there is no reason given to have done this that makes any sense at all. I'm not going to get into an edit war either, but as this is a long-time editor, I am hopeful that he'll grasp the fact that he has no consensus for this, despite the guideline he quotes, and didn't actually follow, and will undo his own work. Tvoz/talk 16:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am opening up discussion on article talk pages (which are intact even after a redirect). You can find them in my edit history. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey there!

Tvoz, thanks for the "get well" -- I'm about 95% and been hospital-free for a week or two. Did you have anything in particular you wanted to discuss? ALSO while I have your attention, one of the last entries in my talk page is the result of me revisting the site for Kaki King, and finding at least one copyrighted photo of her there. I left messages on the talk page, and it turns out that the primary editor in recent months signs her name "E"-- she says she types the four tildes each time...  ? Problem: she works for King's recording company. The photo came from King's MySpace that I removed. Maybe you can have a look? She's nice, but I'm no diplomat as you are. Thanks both ways. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: JFK conspiracy

Hey, I just wanted to directly (i.e. on your talk page in case if you'll miss it on mine) thank you for personally explaining the reasons for reverting my edits in Autopsy section of the linked article. --Wayfarer (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Goldengassers.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Goldengassers.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:MurraytheK Beatles.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MurraytheK Beatles.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Malia Obama

I believe you are unreasonable in making excuses not to have the article on Malia Obama. I also think you are a political activist and hold your loyalty to activism more than to Wikipedia.

I hope the issue of Malia can be resolved but I think you will be militant so I, hereby, notify you of arbitration. Presidentmalia (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I also ask for mediation with the goal of having you confess your activism and agree to stop. I think you will not agree to mediation.Presidentmalia (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, no point in replying, seeing as this account has been blocked. Too bad, as I was going to ask who I can talk to about getting paid for my comments. And I wonder, does anyone else find this guy eerily familiar? Tvoz/talk 02:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Happysad.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Happysad.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Done

Re:

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiderolls 07:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've replied further. Tiderolls 23:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Bristol Palin

Hello Tvoz. I wanted to know your reasoning behind removing me edit. In your edit summary, it says that we are not a news source giving week-by-week calls. However, the article says what song she danced to on Week 1, which is even more week-by-week than what I put. I wanted to add that because it shows how much America has liked her, and have voted for her, even though she was barely famous before she came on Dancing With the Stars. I am not trying to start a fight, but I just wanted to understand your reasoning. Kind Regards, Whitestorm13 (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so like adding citations for her going so far into Dancing With the Stars, and no one expected her to? If so, I will get on that right away. Also, I do not mean to challenge you, but is the part about her dancing to that song neccesary? I mean, I know it was sort of a big deal, but I don't know if it should be added. Kind Regards, Whitestorm13 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Keith Olberman

I saw your revert to Keith Olberman, but I see nothing relating to the matter on his talk page. Can you please explain why his MSNBC job should not listed as past tense? Looking on TV right now, his normal spot on TV has been replaced. - Tyler - 00:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I was in the process of writing on his Talk page when you posted this question - I should have done that first and reverted second, but my reasoning is up there now. And by the way, his normal spot has not at all been replaced - there is just a temporary stand-in for him tonight. We'll know more when it happens - it has not happened yet. Tvoz/talk 00:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. Tyler Tyler | Talk - Contributions | 01:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I messed up your thread at talk countdown with keith olberman. Your deletion of my naughty countdown without keith olberman comment was the right thing to do. Sa ya no ra. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to say so. Actually your comment was cute, just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Tvoz/talk 19:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The joke depended on the formatting. That format doesn't last long here. Deleting it quickly was better than letting it crumble. I don't mind. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about the Cat Stevens article(s)

Tvoz, first, I have wondered why you were visiting my talk page about 2 months ago, when you noticed I'd been in the hospital for awhile. Was my talk page just on your watchlist, or did you have anything you especially wanted to say then? I'm curious! Next, In the "Majicat" site, many new articles, (I think) have appeared which may help in developing the "Cat Stevsns" section of the article, and possibly regaining the GA status it once enjoyed. Finally, I don't know if you noticed, but Starbucks has an "Opus Collection" of CDs by different artists, and Cat Stevens/Yusuf has a CD in that collection; I couldn't help myself, I bought one. All the songs are from the peak of his career: Mona Bone Jakon through Buddha and the Chocolate Box- with the exception of the title song to Roadsinger (To Warm You Through the Night), and I think maybe one other bonus song. It's been a while since I edited the article... do you know offhand if that new release is mentioned in the text, or the discography? Are any of the Starbucks CDs worthy, I wonder? I may also ask User:Wasted Time R, since I noticed him working on Sweet Thursday (with Nicky Hopkins and Alun Davies), but it would help, I think, to ask you both. Please answer on my talk page. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting Cronkite / karate

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_Cronkite&diff=next&oldid=396617514 Javaweb (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

Sure thing - the vandal thought he was being clever using a real book for citation, but he forgot about Google books. Tvoz/talk 01:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Bristol Palin

I did some expansion, refs, and reworking on the DWTS section...could you please look it over for NPOV and prose? Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 22:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Good improvements - I tweaked it a little and fixed refs. Wish we weren't leaning so heavily throughout on People magazine, but at least we have sources. Tvoz/talk 08:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool - thanks for fixing it up! Kelly ^hi! 18:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just did a little more trying to be responsive to the complaint about "wikipedian commentary" - see what you think. Tvoz/talk 18:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good. The absentee ballot stuff does seem a little awkward in that section, but I don't know where else you could put it. It did receive a fair bit of coverage so notability isn't a question at this point. Oh, and I'm hearing that she is a prominent part of the upcoming episode of Sarah Palin's Alaska this coming Sunday so there should be some references about that next week in addition to the DWTS final. Hopefully after that the article stabilizes for a while. Kelly ^hi! 18:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You think she'll dance with the bears? Tvoz/talk 19:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh - no, but she does fire a shotgun and whack big fish with a nightstick. Kelly ^hi! 04:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, sounds like must-see-tv. Meanwhile, we do need cites for it, despite VV's reassuring "It's not just any show" - whatever that means. I know we'll have them soon, but meanwhile I think the tag should be there. Maybe I missed something, but I haven't found a reliable source to put on there, even as a placeholder. If you have one, great! Tvoz/talk 04:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah, no media reviews for SPAlaska yet - will have to wait until next week. BTW, just saw a couple of stories - more Conrad Green defending the voting process/Bristol and explaining the vote, and threatening letter with white powder mailed to Palin at ABC studio. Kelly ^hi! 04:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 8, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 8, 2010. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 05:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

John Lennon (1940–1980) was an English musician and singer-songwriter who achieved worldwide fame as one of the founding members of The Beatles. Lennon and Paul McCartney formed one of the most successful songwriting partnerships of the 20th century. Born and raised in Liverpool, Lennon's first band, The Quarrymen, evolved into The Beatles in 1960. As the group began to undergo the disintegration that led to their break-up at the end of that decade, Lennon launched a solo career that would span the next, punctuated by critically acclaimed albums, including John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band and Imagine, and iconic songs such as "Give Peace a Chance" and "Imagine". Lennon revealed a rebellious nature and acerbic wit, and he became controversial through his work as a peace activist. He moved to New York City in 1971, where his criticism of the Vietnam War resulted in a lengthy attempt by Richard Nixon's administration to deport him. His songs were adapted as anthems by the anti-war movement. He took a sabbatical from the music business in 1975 to devote time to his family but reemerged in 1980 with a comeback album, Double Fantasy, but was murdered three weeks after its release. (more...)

Edwards

Thanks for chiming in, although to your point about one of the links we don't have in there, I had to remove it twice and have a discussion. Otherwise you'd have been discussing that link too. Don't thank me. :-) Thanks - and keep up the good work!  Frank  |  talk  23:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoops - I had not seen that. But totally agree with the removal! Also, the new refs to the books aren't done right - I'll get to that shortly. Hope things settle down. Thank you for your help too, as always! Tvoz/talk 01:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, but I always have to look up how to do that...one ref to the book then sub-refs showing just the page number. It would be much cleaner but it's not in my "I-do-it-every-day" repertoire so I find it tedious. I wonder if there's an easy way to do it. I'll be watching the page to see if you know of one. :-)  Frank  |  talk  03:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

On another note, I tried to collapse smilin' Johnny's face but was unsuccessful. Short of putting another nav box below, do you know how to do that? I just don't think his mug needs to figure prominently on her page.  Frank  |  talk  03:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh Frank - I missed these comments. will look into this when I have a sec - don't think I know how to do the nav box collapse, but I'll look around. The refs arn't hard, just a bit of a pain - I'll get to that too if no one has. Thanks! Tvoz/talk 17:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I think I fixed the problem with autocollapse of Template:John Edwards. Let me know if that isn't working right for for. Kelly ^hi! 17:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work, Kelly - thanks for that. I should have caught that...it was in the template itself rather than the page it was transcluded to. Looks good, thanks!  Frank  |  talk  17:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Great Kelly, thanks. Gotta love the "North Carolina" that snuck into the "state" field. Checkout the template docs, folks, before filling in the fields! (I learned to do that through some embarrassing gaffe a while back which I have blotted out from my conscious mind. not that I always remember to do it...) I haven't looked back at the article yet - will check out those refs soon. Tvoz/talk 18:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Grace Hightower

Hello. Thank you for redirecting Grace Hightower to Robert De Niro. I had just asked help for this, but couldnt because David shankbone's page was locked, so I asked Killer to ask DAvid for me. I'm wondering, what made you interested in the article/redirect? Thank You. 69.140.66.37 (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I noticed the comment on KC's page. I think this is an imperfect fix, but I agree that redirecting to the film didn't really make sense. Perhaps someone will write an article,or at least a stub, on Grace, if there are some better sources than IMDB available. I haven't looked into that. Tvoz/talk 17:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping the IP, Tvoz. I'll look into what's written about her to see if we can get something besides a redirect. I've been sick this week with a head cold, so it may not be until next week. --David Shankbone 19:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Feel better! Lots of nasty stuff going around NY in the wake of the weather shifts. Or, at least, so my mother would have said. Tvoz/talk 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the new stub would survive a DR, but I've seen much worse pass on here. It's somewhat helpful as a 'sub-article' of Robert De Niro. --David Shankbone 07:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it works. Not the strongest, but it's sourced, and she has some notability,so I think it has a good shot. Thanks for taking the time to put it together/ Tvoz/talk 07:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure :-) Thanks for reviewing it. --David Shankbone 08:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Kathleen Rose Perkins

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Kathleen Rose Perkins. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kathleen Rose Perkins

The article Kathleen Rose Perkins has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mhiji (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, ok. It's a stub I created yesterday - that's the point of a stub, to have people add to it and create an actual article, with references. I'll add a source -I was not aware of this new policy, and think it's kind of ridiculous for a stub that is not in any way libellous - BLP concerns are properly about potential libel, not about notability or strength of sourcing for non-controversial matters. I have IMDb for starters, which of course won't be considered RS, but I am assuming that will allow this stub to stand until it can be expanded. Here we have another example of the tail wagging the dog. We need to protect BLPs - we should have instituted flagged revisions, or something like that, long ago, as many many editors have repeatedly endorsed, but instead we have newbies running around templating experienced editors about how to reference new stub bios that are totally non-controversial. Welcome to Wikipedia, ten years later. Tvoz/talk 04:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Jack Warden

• Warden's father, John Warden Lebzelter, is listed in the Kentucky Death Records (1938) at ancestry.com - the record also gives the names of his parents - Catherine O'Brien and Phillip Lebzelter - which is how I was able to trace their ancestry further back. Warden's paternal grandfather, Phillip Lebzelter, was the son and grandson of German immigrants to Pennsylvania. Ironically, his brother's first name was "Christian". Much of the ancestry of the grandfather's parents had already been traced here (the Martha Ackerman and Johann Wilhelm Lebzelter), and his ancestors had been getting married in Evangelical Lutheran Churches for generations (German Lutherans in Pennsylvania ended up being called Pennsylvania Dutch). The person who created the genealogy was Michael Huey (bio here), who self-published a book on the Lebzelter genealogy in 2001. As for Warden's paternal grandmother, Catherine O'Brien - according to the 1900 census, her father was from Ireland and her mother from Canada, so I presume she was neither Jewish nor Pennsylvania Dutch.
• Is all of this original research? Of course it is. But luckily, I managed to find a Los Angeles Times article/interview from 1958 that described Warden as being of "Dutch-Irish descent". This is literally the only reference I could find in a newspaper to Warden's background during his lifetime. Nothing else, newspaper or book, went into it at all during his life - and no references at all stated that he (or his father) was Jewish - an omission that would be surprising if he really was Jewish, considering how many Jewish characters Warden had played during his lifetime.
• That leaves us with The Guardian's obit, published the week after he died. We already know it isn't accurate because it says he was "from a poor Jewish family", but even the IMDB says that his mother, Laura Costello, wasn't Jewish.
• As far as I was able to find, that obit is the only reference that has ever existed to Warden being of Jewish ancestry - the only one in his very extensive 50-year career. In a general sense, the L.A. Times article would be more reliable because it had Warden's personal involvement (he was interviewed), while the Guardian article did not. In a specific sense where I know what I do, I'd have to surmise that the Guardian gleaned it from the IMDB, as they have other things (The Guardian's writing in September 2006 that Sacha Baron Cohen's mother was of Persian Jewish descent, copied from the then-unsourced Wikipedia entry, also inspired a long and endless discussion on that page, and is also inaccurate). As for the IMDB, I have no idea why the writer of the IMDB bio, Jon C. Hopwood, decided that Warden's father was Jewish (I guess because his last name can sound Jewish). He even mentions (in the IMDB bio) that Warden had talked about all this in an interview - but I was not able to find any such interview, nor any interview where Warden talked about having any Jewish ancestry. Like I said, the only reference available on his background during his lifetime was the 1958 L.A. Times profile. Anyway, Jon C. Hopwood is not a reliable source. However, not having researched this before, I had presumed that he was correct (i.e. that Warden's father was really Jewish) and was more than a little surprised to find out that the IMDB bio was way off (although that explained the lack of other sources). If you are really interested, maybe you can find some way to contact Hopwood and ask him to produce this interview.
• As for his birthname - I'm sorry I reverted that along with the other edits. Some sources list him as having been born "John H. Lebzelter" (presumably the H stood for something). However, I see that Warden's World War II enlistment record lists him as "John W. Lebzelter", so I suspect your change to "John Warden Lebzelter" is correct. I'll revert it to that. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation - clearly this was not an off-hand edit on your part. Your research is pretty convincing - although I'm never too comfortable with the approach of trying to find RSes to support OR, I did find it odd that there was not any other independent discussion of his background out there, as just about all of the Google hits could be traced back to the earlier Wiki article wording and therefore irrelevant. The Hopwood IMDB piece is the one that I do wonder about, as it goes into some detail - conjured up from where? I'm not ready to dismiss it out of hand (I know nothing about Hopwood), but unless we locate that interview, I agree that Hopwood's bio is not enough on its own. I think it might be helpful to re-post this exchange on the article talk page, if that's ok with you, so if anyone else comes along wondering about this, your reasoning will be available to them. Tvoz/talk 19:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, please do so. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Tvoz, I uploaded a bunch of photos (a couple of musicians photos that I didn't even know, too). Whenever I find a photo for a page without one, (generally necessary) I end up creating an infobox, putting the pic in there, copyediting and cleaning up the whole article. Then, I check for typos, etc, and unless it's an article I plan to edit regularly, I move on. This time, uploading and fixing Tift Merritt, I thoughdt I'd do a little extra bit of citing, and went to the official website for info. Here's the band part: the entire article appears to be copied from that official website. The only real visible change is my re-wording to remove POV crap in the past 2 days. What to do? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think mentioning it to an Admin. is best. I just looked at the official website again, and 95% is almost word for word without my tiny wording changes. But who? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Leah. If you don't want to rewrite it yourself, choose the most appropriate template from here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance#Copyright violations and put it on the top of the page. And post something on WP:ANI to attract admin attention. Tvoz/talk 19:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you really are quick! I sent a note to User:Sandstein (an Admin.) mentioning my worries right after writing you. But thanks; didn't se the incident report. It's possible that the copyvio began as far back as 2005. I really hate it when it's like that.. Ah well.. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Criminal Minds

Two reverts isn't a violation of 3RR, and isn't edit warring. I have begun a talk page discussion on the matter. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR. My comment here that you removed clearly said "at the brink of" and "on the verge of" 3RR. Two reverts of the same material in just over an hour is indeed on the brink of 3RR, and it certainly can be seen as edit warring. And 3RR is not an entitlement to make 3 reverts, as I said. Thank you for bringing it to Talk now however. Tvoz/talk 07:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Alice Ochs

Nice job hunting down an obituary. I tried last month but I couldn't find anything.

I think Phil would have been shocked that she became a minister. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I know! Crazy! Had no idea about that - she is in the film, but nothing about what she's done since then, not even her photography. I'm glad I found that too - Sonny's note that was posted on the list provided truth, but not verifiability..... You saw that it's coming to your neck of the woods? Tvoz/talk 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can hardly wait! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ref names

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages at KimChee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

More eyes needed on Talk:Health care reform in the United States

Hello,

An IP editor has been aggressively/passionately arguing for an addition to Health care reform in the United States about how the individual mandate is a bill of attainder which is apparently illegal. The IP editor tried to edit war in the addition then went to the talk page to continually push the point. I and another editor asked the IP editor to provide sources for the criticism so we could work on it and see if it should be added, but all we got continually were law excerpts, supreme court rulings, etc not directly on the bill from the IP editor with his/her interpretations of those excerpts. When the IP editor did finally proved a good source, we wanted to see if we could write something, but the IP editor reverted back to their previous pattern of excerpt quotes and interpretations.

I was hoping for a couple more eyes on the situation so that something good can come of this because I'm getting to my wits end and I don't have the time for the continual back and forth. Like I stated on the talk page, if it can be neutrally written, then it should be added.

Thanks for taking a look. Brothejr (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The/the Beatles

Yes folks, it's here again. Please look at this link [34] and leave your vote. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe we're talking about this again. Tvoz/talk 08:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark Kelly

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages at Talk:Mark E. Kelly.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mlm42 (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice--M. Kelly

Good edits!--Utahredrock (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

General question

I've noticed that the better Wikipedia articles seem to have no references in their leads. Is this handled by insuring that all facts are fully referenced in the main body of the article? I am hoping to keep improving Mark's article, and despite the amount of edits I've done off and on over the years, I still feel like somewhat of a novice--especially on certain issues.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it kind of varies (what else?). Anything controversial or contentious always should be cited everywhere, but since intros are supposed to be summaries of the body, often just having good cites in the body is enough for non-contentious material. This is usually decided by consensus of the editors working there - some people really don't like breaking up the intro with cites. I personally don't care that much about this, so I can go either way other than not wanting to see a long string of references to one point. As for policy on this, see WP:LEADCITE. Tvoz/talk 18:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I may tackle that later. I kind of like the lead without the citations. For now I want to get the references shaped up. I also want to get this article ranked higher. That's something I've never played with--or at least not much or not successfully.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoping for your input on this

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_E._Kelly#Any_suggestions.3F_RE_Spouse_of_member_of_Congress --Utahredrock (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the request from the talk page and came up with an edit. Your input is always welcome. It's regarding that Kelly is the only spouse of a member of congress to go to space. Seems important enough to keep, but not important enough for the opening. --Utahredrock (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Good Article status?

You and Mlm42 have been great collaborators on Mark Kelly, thanks. I am curious about how to take it to the next level. I'd like to nominate it for a Good Article community review. I think it's just about ready. Any comments? Thoughts? I am still not in love with the opening, but am stuck with what we have for the moment.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well done

		The Half Barnstar
		For your efforts in collaborating with User:Utahredrock (who holds the other half of this barnstar), to bring Mark E. Kelly up to GA status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cresix (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Tvoz/talk 06:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Affleck

Sincerely, Thank you for the help on Ben Affleck. I liked the Forbes source, but realized that what caught me on it, was that Ben's compensation was within a mere "rounding error" of the total gross of the movie Pearl Harbor. But all ironies should not make it into encyclopedia articles. He is one of my favorite actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughey (talk • contribs) 13:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC) ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughey (talk • contribs) 14:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. As you likely realize, what was bothering me - in addition to the "rounding error" (whatever that means) mentioned in the source - is there had been no indication of why that one year's salary was being singled out in our article, and your original placement of it with that poor source, in juxtaposition with Affleck's comments about CEO salaries, appeared to be a POV commentary about his politics, and classic OR/SYNTH, which of course is not going to fly. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 17:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel Hernandez Jr. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Hernandez Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Good edit

Thanks for catching my poor mistake on the Swedish Judicial v Assange article. I had actually made a number of changes and didn't notice I had put "cooling of bipartisanship" in there by accident. :) -- Avanu (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I didn't see it in that article - I saw it on the Tucson shooting article. Actually had a laugh at the idea of "cooling of bipartisanship". Tvoz/talk 20:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think the political climate/reactions section could probably be combined with other commentary. I've been trying to work back through the article (albeit slowly) to try and pare out the bits that are less encyclopedic, and also bring it a little more cohesiveness. -- Avanu (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at the big edit I just did on that section and let's talk about it on Talk:2011 Tucson shooting if you disagree with what I did. I certainly don't want to get into revert wars on this - see my comments there. Cheers Tvoz/talk 20:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think my brain is off today. I meant to say 2011 Tuscon article. Also, I like what you are doing with those recent changes. I felt that it needed to be reviewed since a lot of the material was a little overhyped. -- Avanu (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Ta very much, like, Tvoz. D'ya wanna a chip butty an' a cuppa tea? It's on me... :)--andreasegde (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Next time I'm in Linz... Hmm, do Linzer tortes come from Linz? Tvoz/talk 23:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

YES THEY DO! (I forgot I was on Wikipedia, where the answers to all questions reside.) Tvoz/talk 00:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

They do, but they're very dry. :) BTW, you have a son who is an editor for Rolling Stone? How cool is that? :))--andreasegde (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The coolest! Tvoz/talk 02:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The end of the video (it's at the bottom of the page) might make you laugh.--andreasegde (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1367832/Comic-Relief-2011-James-Corden-George-Michaels-Red-Nose-Day-Smithy-sketch.html

Brilliant! Tvoz/talk 02:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Malia Ann Obama

Hi Tvoz. Should Malia Ann Obama be reverted back to a redirect? Some of the content there is not neutral and may violate BLP (e.g. "It is notable that the press issued stories solely about Malia and her mother's trip to Brazil even though the President also went.") Cunard (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh great, not again. Yes, it should be a revert to the family article. Thanks for the heads up - I;ll take a look. Tvoz/talk 05:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for redirecting the article. I didn't know whether there was a new discussion about creating a separate article so didn't do the redirect myself. Best, Cunard (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

None that I am aware of - and I see no reason to overturn the longstanding consensus. Tvoz/talk 05:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The issues present in the article before it was again redirected strongly indicate that it is wise to contain biographical information about Sasha and Malia within the Family article. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just read it - I am amazed no one flagged it sooner for its content, let alone just for the fact that it shouldn't have been created. I didn't see it - thanks for letting me know. Tvoz/talk 06:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It is surprising that it lasted for so long. I hope you've placed the page on your watchlist, as I've had to revert another attempt at creating a separate article. Cunard (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (3rd nomination). Sigh. Cunard (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Pure disruption, and extremely suspicious. Time for some checkuser action, I believe. Tvoz/talk 04:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kewlarticle. Feel free to add other accounts if you remember which sockmaster this is. Cunard (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that - you can see the results, which went almost exactly where I expected them to be, including uncovering one or two that I'd been suspicious of for a long time. The "unrelated" checkuser report has happened with others of his socks before - behavior still points to him. Tvoz/talk 05:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. At a cursory glance through his old accounts, he appears to be a long-term sock with quite a history. Hopefully, the blocks that'll be placed on those accounts will prevent his disrupting Wikipedia for a while. Cunard (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed - more disruptive than you can imagine. My radar for him has been shown to be pretty accurate on this - sometimes checkuser doesn't reveal it, but behavior does. Glad to have uncovered a few more, including a couple I've noticed for a while. There's no doubt in my mind about this latest one, by the way, so behavior will have to be the indicator. Tvoz/talk 16:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages at Stickee's talk page.
Message added 08:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Monica Lewinsky

I am just noticing that you removed the video but the article retains the following content: "News of the Clinton–Lewinsky relationship broke in January 1998. On January 26, 1998, the president claimed "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" in a nationally televised White House news conference." It does not make much sense to me to remove the video which helps the reader to understand what this section is describing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony - this article is her bio. The section on the scandal is supposed to be a shorter summary of the longer daughter article Lewinsky scandal - we give the quote in the bio, but we don't need to have the video in the bio, if it is in the daughter article, which it now is. Frankly, I don't see that the video is needed anywhere. It doesn't really add anything beyond the quote itself - it's not exactly hard to understand what's being described - but ok, the daughter article can take it. But in my opinion it's overkill to have it in both the bio and daughter article. Tvoz/talk 06:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, I am creating my first audio and video files this month. I am not an expert, but it seems that in articles where the quote is used, that content is important. I find it hard to believe that you don't understand what videos add to articles, but I am not expert on them. They show what the heck you are blowing wind about in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha- and admittedly I try to stay as far away as I can here from images, audio and video, because the arcane rules and regulations about them give me a serious headache... so this may be a question of personal preference or how much one can take. My point about the Monica Lewinsky article, though, is that a video of Clinton talking about education reform, even though it ends up with a sentence about her, seems to me to be out of place and unnecessary in this summary section of a BLP about her. The long daughter article, Lewinsky scandal, is the more appropriate place for a video making reference to the scandal, but truthfully even in the scandal subarticle I'm not convinced that the whole clip belongs there - it's a 6 minute video about education reform, the vast majority of which has nothing to do with the scandal. And the part that does, the last minute or so, doesn't go beyond the text - the words are the same so I don't think it adds that much. I don't really object to having something in the subarticle, but I do question having the entire 6 minutes even there - maybe it can be edited down. On the other hand, if there were an interview of Monica talking, and we summarized what she said in the text, a video giving the actual words would be of interest, and probably could work in her bio. But this video of Clinton just doesn't seem to me to be right for the bio and has too much extraneous stuff even for the scandal subarticle. So I am not attacking videos per se - just the placement of this one on the one hand, and the scope of it on the other. Tvoz/talk 19:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In terms of scope, the article is up for debate at WP:FSC and the general topic of clipping long speeches is up for discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates#Editing_down_of_longish_speeches_.28and_other_sounds.29. Basically, the speech has political context that says Clinton wanted to make clear Lewinsky was a footnote among his issues of the day. Clipping the speech to make a soundbite is what a sensationalist media might do, but we should not, IMO. We should present the entire context for the reader.

In terms of placement, we are dealing with whether we want the newspaper, radio or television version of the story. We have the opportunity to supplement the newspaper version of that component of her bio with a television version. It is not like her article has so much content that the reader will be overwhelmed. Additionally, adding a video does not impose much of a cost on people who don't want to see it, but provided great benefit to those who do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Tony, it's her biography, not a place for a discussion of his motives, his political context, his thought process. And you would need a third party analysis of the statement, not your own - and this is sounding more like OR/SYNTh than a mere illustration of the text. A clip could fit in Lewinsky scandal, or the Clinton presidency article, but I will argue against it in Monica Lewinsky (and in any case the editors at those articles would consider what to include, not just the FSC commenters). I understand quite well what the political context is of the 6 minute video, and why you want to include the whole thing, but I think it is editorializing to include the whole thing, most of which is irrelevant to the scandal, in order to make your point that she was a footnote - your point, not his stated point, not a sourced third party analysis. Frankly, that's just as much of a problem as making a sensationalist soundbite might be. But to include the relevant material only - which is the part starting with "Now I have to go work on my state of the union address" - is not sensationalist, it is merely the relevant portion. As for your last point, the story is not different based on whether it was in the newspaper, radio or television - the story is the quote, and all of the reliable sources I've looked at that discuss this or provide the video or audio, give the quote itself with at most the leadup as we have it in the text. Tvoz/talk 08:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. I do not agree. However, I will rest with it remaining excluded from her article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

?

What the fuck was that revert on Jimbo's talk page is. That was a constructive edit by a constructive user. You know rollback is only for clear cases of vandalism. mauchoeagle 07:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea how that happened and wasn't even aware that it had - I was not reading Jimbo's talk page and did not deliberately do rollback. I must have clicked and not realized where my cursor was while I was looking at my watchlist. Thanks for letting me know. Tvoz/talk 07:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Tvoz. The rollback problem may be resolved through adding code to your vector or monobook pages. From Ucucha (talk · contribs) at User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch76#Eyeglass fund:

Placing .page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none;} on Special:MyPage/vector.css or Special:MyPage/monobook.css (whichever you are using) will hide the link from the watchlist. Ucucha 20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope this works. Best, Cunard (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, but I have not had a rollback problem as far as I know, so don't really want to remove it - I think it must have been a wayward click when I wasn't watching my cursor. Tvoz/talk 07:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. I hope this is a fluke, but if it happens on a regular basis, the above code could be useful. Cunard (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Need your opinion

Hey Tvoz, I bumped into the article for Amanda Palmer, just checking up on how some articles are doing --at least the ones I add photos to.. OK. It's a freaking mess, but aside from that, having bolded in the lead is some comment about how she is "sometimes known as Amanda Fucking Palmer". I don't care if it's sourced or not, myself; I have seen some weird stuff doing the Wikignome gig I seem to apply myself to, but it's like saying that Tupac Shakur was a jazz artist, just b/c someone could hear the slightest hint of it in one obscure song, or something. It isn't what people think of in describing a musician. Ditto for Amanda Palmer. I wanted your input there, since it's dicey. You are involved with the Village Pump, whereas nobody knows who I am. SIGH. Sometimes I really do believe any barnstars I have received (few) --I like to keep on my user page just to keep newbie editors from reverting sensible edits and the like. It's also a reason why I don't get involved in controversial articles like you do. Please look at it and take whatever measure you see fit? Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Leah, actually I have nothing to do with Village Pump at all - don't know where you got that idea. I don't know anything about Amanda Palmer (although I've met her husband), but take a look at the article Talk page - this has apparently been discussed and some editors there say this nickname is how she calls herself - I have no idea, and I'm not going to get involved in something I know nothing about. So if it bothers you, go ahead and research it and see if including it is justified or not, and if not, bring it up on Talk. But since Wikipedia doesn't censor, you won't get much traction on that basis.Tvoz/talk 04:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OK --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Taylor

Re: this edit and my rationale behind it. The tone of my first Comment was a trifle snarky (at the time I seem to remember a run of errant corrections) & the wording did run too long, so I adjusted the wording to give the reason for the BU being capitalized in BUtterfield 8 (rather than only the 'No'). Regardless of my reasons, the consensus seems to be short & pithy, so I'll leave the Comment at that. Short & pithy will probably keep the errant-correctors at bay. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't disagree with your original note or its tone, given the run of mindless "corrections", and at first I left it there in the first spot, but on reconsidering I thought it was a bit much, and probably not more effective than just the short pithy one. I deal with this on Marshall McLuhan where well-meaning people continually change the spelling of "massage" to "message", despite hidden notes right there - doesn't seem to matter if the note is sweet or nasty, long or short! Let's hope the determined interest in getting rid of that pesky upper case U will pass.... Cheers back Tvoz/talk 17:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am hopeful the flood of reverts on the movie title will slow the (un)corrections down. Maybe a Note could be placed in a 'Notes' section, stating that BUtterfield 8 was a well-known Manhattan Upper East Side telephone exchange at one time...or even some text in the article itself, something along the lines of BUtterfield 8's Title section. Oddly enough the movie article itself hasn't seemed to have gotten the slew of errant-corrections, but perhaps that is because the readers who seek it out know the actual title already, as opposed to people who find the main Taylor article and don't know very many facts about the woman's career. (And I am sure that McLuhan's article gets a ton of odd corrections...) Shearonink (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Lennon vandal

Hello there,

I'm spending hours undoing the edits by 69.231.228.193, who's re-doing them as we speak. Can someone block him? Hope you're well ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, Hot, I just play one on TV. But if this hasn't been taken care of, it should be posted on WP:AIV - I'll take a look. Also may be time for semi-protection for a while. All's well here - you too I hope! Tvoz/talk 02:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see the problem is not confined to one article - I'd have to look at little closer at this to be sure it's vandalism not good faith error before calling him on that, (not that I doubt your judgment, just want to be sure) - but at the very least appears to be serious violation of 3RR. Tvoz/talk 03:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I've reverted a lot of what he did too, but at this point I am losing track of what's right on these individual songs, so maybe you can take a look at his contributions and verify the ones where his edit is marked "Top". I asked for him to be blocked, but for reasons unclear to me the request was considered stale a few hours later, so they didn't do it. With any luck, maybe he's gone, but if you see this start up again let me know and I'll pursue the block. On top of everything else, his prose edits are full of absurd typos - I'm not getting "good faith" vibes from this, but I don't know. I do know that this is taking up too much time. Let's see what happens. Tvoz/talk 16:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Hope all's well. I traced him to Los Angeles, so he/she does the handywork later on... Hotcop2 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh joy. Check Well Well Well (John Lennon song) - originally said artist was POB, he added JL, I changed back, then changed to JL - at this point not sure what's right. Thx. Tvoz/talk 16:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like there are a few songs originally credited as POB - I don't know what's right, maybe you do. Tvoz/talk 16:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Surviving Against the Odds.jpg

Concerning this edit, I'm not sure how familiar you are with our non-free content guidelines, but neither mere illustration nor verification are acceptable reasons for using non-free content. Basically, our question has to be whether the article can survive without the image, whether the image shows something that has to be seen by the reader. I am not convinced that knowing what the cover of a book by the subject of the article looks like is so important that a non-free image must be used. You'll note that very few author articles use non-free book covers (a featured article, a good article, another featured) and it's because the covers themselves are rarely of such high importance. If you are familiar with our non-free content criteria and still believe that this image meets them (specifically, the concern is with regards to criterion 8) could you please explain why? J Milburn (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

J, of course I'm familiar with these criteria, but I don't agree with them. Common sense on this is clear to me - of course the book cover adds value to the article. The arcane rules that have been developed here about what is acceptable and what not have little connection to normal fair use guidelines in the academic world, for example, and I usually just stay out of it and don't comment, because it's a losing battle. But to suggest nothing is added by the cover is to me on the face of it wrong, whatever our policies are. The result of these misguided policies are an encyclopedia with far fewer images than we should have, and I've yet to hear a convincing argument for why that has to be. I object to the removal of the image, but I'm not going to fight it. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 23:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"Of course I'm familiar with these criteria, but I don't agree with them"- Ok, that's fine, you don't have to agree with them. Equally, there are guidelines I think are stupid, but, while I'm here, I'm going to respect them, as that's how this project works. IAR is fundamental, but that does not mean we should ignore policies we don't like, it's there to help us in unforseen circumstances. If it's something I very strongly disagree with, I'll do my best to change it; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I could offer you a defence of our NFCC, but I doubt you're interested- however, what I will say is this: If you are aware of the fact you disagree so strongly with the specific rules, perhaps it's best to avoid them. Perhaps reverting for what you know to not be policy-based reasoning was not the best course of action. We've not had dealings before (I don't think), but I know of you and I know you to be a good editor- acting directly against policy simply because you don't like the policy is rarely going to be a good idea. J Milburn (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right - it wasn't a thought-out revert, just a reaction to what in a common-sense world seemed very wrong. I wasn't thinking about policy at that moment, I was reacting to the idea that an image that seems obvious to me to be an enhancement of an article - and has been in the article providing what I think is an important function for a year (although I did not add it) - would be removed because it "added nothing". It's actually not true that I am not interested in why our NFCC policy is the way it is - I am always interested in the underpinnings of a policy, especially when it seems wrong to me - and indeed I do almost always avoid the argument and stay out of matters related to photos here. In fact if you look upstream on this page and in the archives I am sure you'll see me refer numerous times to the fact that I stay away from photo policy - I find it difficult to leave logic at the door when applying policy, so I stay away from an area I know may call for it. This time my sense of the right took precedence over my usual course of action - to stay out of photo disputes - because it just seemed so wrong. I'm not really an IAR type of editor, so that's not what it was - more likely it was having spent too much time yesterday slogging through Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and trying to bring that one back to Earth, so my usual restraint in avoiding this somewhat arcane policy area suffered a hit. In any case, as I said above I'm certainly not going to fight this one, because I don't doubt that you have policy support - but I did feel the need to object, if perhaps not in the best way. Nice to meet you, anyway, if not under the best circumstances - I suspect I'll call upon you in the future when I have photo policy questions....Cheers :) Tvoz/talk 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the logic/NFCC dichotomy, I just think that you have to remember that, as in any area, words can sometimes take on slightly new meanings. So, yes, from the outside looking in, claiming that the book cover "added nothing" may seem strange, even self-evidently wrong. I guess something to remember is that, from a policy perspective, images are either free or non-free, with no middle ground- so while many images may seem perfectly innocuous, from a policy perspective, they have to be treated fairly heavy-handedly, and, yes, somewhat more heavy handedly than they would be treated by some other publications. I can certainly appreciate what you say about articles like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories- I've had dealings with other editors who are on the front lines of the "good fight" with some of the worst kinds of editors, and I can appreciate that it's very easy to see people removing images for some (overly?) legalistic in a similar light. I've had images I've uploaded deleted too, so I know how it feels. Nice to chat with you- you're more than welcome to contact me with queries. J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Middleton

Is it really? On the Mariah Carey article, it does not say that. Nor does it say in the Victoria Beckham, Sarah Palin, or the Katie Holmes articles. The first two are GA, too. Estheroliver (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, you really want to play want dueling articles? Diana, Princess of Wales, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michelle Obama, and many, many more. By the way, Katie Holmes and Sarah Palin are not great examples for your position -they both identify their siblings as "She is the youngest in a family of five children (four daughters, one son)", and "She is the youngest in a family of five children (four daughters, one son)" a couple of lines above their names, which is arguably more awkward than even the slightly awkward sibling wording we had for Catherine which I've changed anyway. The point is that identifying a sister as a sister is totally common, and the problem with the sentence, if there was a problem, was including the word "siblings" - which was there because the opener of the paragraph said she is the eldest of three, and it seemed more appropriate to acknowledge that we had already mentioned that there were siblings when actually identifying them by name. In any case, I think it is fine now. In my long experience here I've found it's not a good idea to make assumptions like "Anybody who speaks even a beginner level of English would know...". You'd be surprised. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 08:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Katie Holmes is the youngest of five children. Palin is the third of four children, so she is not the youngest.

To be honest, I would not be surprised because I speak English as a second language myself. On the Yao Ming article, I had once linked that he was an only child; one of the more experienced admins had said, "Look, per MoS, this is considered overlinking. Anybody who speaks English knows what an only child is." I guess one of the other ESLers took the term too literally and removed it, saying he was not a child anymore. Of course, it was restored because that's just how the term is used. It's the same deal here. ("If there is any trace of that, they need to be removed as well. Her siblings birthdates/years are not notable.") Estheroliver (talk)

My 4AM wedding-fatigue cut and paste error on Palin - quote is "She is the third of four children (three daughters, one son)" a line above naming the names. Point still the same as above - for both of them the gender of the siblings is listed, if in its own fairly awkward way, not leaving the names to be the determinants. You really can't go by the names anyway - Stanley Ann Dunham and Evelyn Waugh come quickly to mind, and there are probably better examples. Anyway.... although I disagreed with your edit, you did highlight that there was some awkwardness in that sentence, so the article is improved. Tvoz/talk 19:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hey, just wanted to say I respect your work and point out my comment at the talk page about why I instated my own version. I invite your comments there. Best, Abrazame (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - nice of you to say that. I did see and respond on the article talk page and haven't yet had a chance to look at your proposed wording. I have no doubt that mine could be improved - I just wanted to try to get it on the right track and keep it in play, because it's pretty obvious to me that it belongs there. Nice to meet you - although I've seen you around for quite a while, I'm not sure if we've interacted directly before. A glance at the topics on your user talk page shows me that you also jump between pop culture and politics - whenever I've found the arguing on the political ones too intense I jump into the latest round of the The/the Beatles wars and the like and am reminded that crazy is everywhere. (By the way, FYI, it's "she"...don't worry, you're far from the only one to get that wrong!) Cheers Tvoz/talk 18:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

are you too lazy to look it up

or what? 74.111.13.100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

You must be kidding. Tvoz/talk 08:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Article

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages at Talk:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lhb1239 (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you perpetuating F. Gwynplaine Macintyre's falsehoods?

moved and responded on Talk: F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre

Interview

Hi Tvoz, I'm a French journalist and I'm writing an article about the inside debate between Wikipedia contributors about the Dominique Strauss-Kahn page. You might not notice but there's a great difference of treatment between the French WP and the English one. I would like to ask you a few question about that if you can give me a little bit of your time today. Here you can contact me : guaranaseven@hotmail.com

Thank you. Regards, Antoine

--Guaranaseven (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Antoine - email coming to you. Tvoz/talk 14:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks great, Antoine! Tvoz/talk 16:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep it up, Tvoz, and soon you'll be notable enough for an article of your own. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

DSK : Split need

Tvoz, please consider that I modified my split proposal from an new article on the 'trial' (not yet sure), to a new article on the case/sex scandal (wich already exist). Also, consider a change in your vote. Having a new article, we will avoid conflict with some users willing to keep the section's size small. Yug (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take another look, but no promises. Tvoz/talk 16:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

JBKO's Name in Infobox

Hi Tvoz, could you provide some insight on the discussion page of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis regarding this issue? I don't want to get into an editing war with the other editor, so I thought I'd seek another educated opinion. Thanks! FrostySnows (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Phil Ochs, pacifist

The problem is that some people follow the rules too closely. Technically, an article shouldn't be in a category unless it is clear from the article. ("It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.") The article doesn't say Ochs was a pacifist. I'll look for a source that says so explicitly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Off2riorob#Jose Antonio Vargas

Would you provide a third opinion about Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#RfC: undocumented immigrant or illegal immigrant. (See User talk:Off2riorob#Jose Antonio Vargas.)

Instead of an RfC, would a normal talk page discussion be better to settle the dispute over the article's wording and end the edit warring? Cunard (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, I think a regular discussion would have been enough as a starter, especially since there was already a discussion going on at the BLP Noticeboard - but no real problem going with the RfC. I've commented. Tvoz/talk 04:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Just saw your exchange with Off2riorob, and I have to say I agree with him that this was not necessary, and also wonder why you're escalating this. I had not seen your attempt at closing the noticeboard discussion - not the way we do it. Tvoz/talk 04:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My closure of the BLPN thread was to direct users to the talk page. I've seen slow-moving edit wars that have lasted for months because no consensus had been reached on the article's content (e.g. List of YouTube personalities). I initiated an RfC to hopefully put the issue to rest as I've seen users revert war over the "illegal" and "undocumented" terminology. Because of the objections over an RfC, I've converted the RfC into a normal talk page discussion. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

OK - seems to have been done in good faith, just may be a bit of overkill. Let's see what happens. Tvoz/talk 05:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages at Freshacconci's talk page.
Message added 18:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

freshacconci talktalk 18:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Death of Caylee Anthony

Care to help out editing this article? I feel you would be great at it. I'm planning on adding some information about the publicity and aftermath, and that's probably it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hiya - thanks for the vote of confidence  :) Actually I did a fair amount of work on this article a few years ago, but got caught up in other things and didn't look at this one much since then - also had some frustrating talk page exchanges so moved on. But I'm sure it can use some work now - so I will take a look later today - I'm on the way out. Glad it is still semi-prot. Tvoz/talk 17:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks. Your opinion on some of the current talk page discussions would be especially appreciated. I can understand wanting to leave this article up to others, though, certainly. Flyer22 (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ann Dunham - possible edit war

An a single purpose IP user apparently is starting an edit war about the Obama quote about his mother's difficulty getting health care because of "pre-existing conditions". Won't listen to reason; won't look at Janey Scott book. Can you help? You're better at this than me. Thx Bellagio99 (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Not sure I have the strength to go through another presidential campaign on Wikipedia......Tvoz/talk 16:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Non carborundum est Bellagio99 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Being born in the Isle of man makes you Manx"

It doesn't, for example, Christian Bale was born in Wales but is not Welsh, same with Tommy Cooper, The Edge was born in England but is not English, Dave Snowden was born in England but is not English. It goes on. Why? Because they simply arne't. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that was shorthand edit-summary-speak, so not really explained. Had I written a fuller comment on the talk page I would have said that he was born on the Isle of Man and that they self-identified as Manx, and the Isle of Man claimed them as their own. See some of the material in Bee Gees that talks about their recording of Ellan Vannin, the commemorative stamp issued by the Isle of Man, their naming as Freemen of the City of Douglas, etc. I don't know what your criteria are for determining who gets the label, but since there are multiple supporting sources, the identification would seem right. But more importantly for this set of articles is that there have been bloody conflicts on the talk pages about whether these guys are to be called Manx or English or Australian, or even American, so we long ago agreed to describe them as "Born in the Isle of Man to English parents, the Gibb brothers lived their first few years in Chorlton, Manchester, England, then moved in the late 1950s to Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, where they began their musical careers." and avoid the characterization of them as Manx or English or Australian, or anything else. That has kept the peace, more or less, and allows us to not have the endless arguments of British vs English, et cetera ad nauseam, which is pointless and tedious. The only place that identifies them as any nationality/ethnicity/etc, are the categories, then, and I don't personally see any harm in that. Nice to meet you, by the way - I see we have some overlapping interests and background. Cheers! Tvoz/talk 23:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :) once explained it does make total sense. I'm afraid when I read your message it was very late and I could barely read! MY eyes, they die (And the goggles do nothing) Oh that's cool, I enjoy talking to people with the same interests with me xD --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages at Fat&Happy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

01:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry's GPA

You et alia have destroyed my faith in the ability of wikipedia editors to listen to, let alone recognize, extremely simple self-evident facts about the observable universe. I'm a scientist by trade and have believed for some time that Wikipedia might be that last bastion of hope for conserving the sanity of philosophical realism in popular culture. Today I am proven wrong. It's unfortunate that I can't delete my WP account, otherwise I would. Instead, I think I'll rename it, vanish, and never edit on WP again. This experience was, literally, that bad. Congratulations. (and, no, I doubt he could've read a paragraph of Joyce) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quophnix (talk • contribs) 21:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I'm sorry Quophnix - that was not at all my intention, and hope you'll reconsider. I don't know that Wikipedia can conserve any sanity, but I do think it is important to try to adhere to some standards and across-the-board guidelines, or else it will easily devolve into anarchy. This guy is at the moment a hot topic - almost 1 million views of that page this month - and I have been through the joys of editing these hot articles and know that we need to be as clear and accurate and sourced as we can, in the face of inevitable attacks - usually partisan. I know your intentions were good, and I don't even disagree with your conclusions - I just know from a lot of experience that if we want to include material that will be contentious to some people, we need to be bulletproof in terms of sourcing. I want to include his academic prowess, as I think it tells us something, but only if we can back it up with solid, non-partisan (as much as that is possible) outside sources, preferably several. Had we had such sourcing - and I expect we will find some soon enough - then the arguments of "undue" would not get any traction, nor would the BLP arguments. I take a long view - I am sure that if this is a real issue in his background, there will be responsible journalists discussing it - for all I know there already are, and I'll see what I can find. And then we will be in a good position to defend the inclusion of such negative information. Now, it is seen as just smear, even though that may not have been the motivation in adding it. Do reconsider your departure - we need editors who can carry on a cogent discussion, and I am sure you can continue to make a real contribution here. My advice would be to go easy on the toxic articles - in 2007/8 when editing the presidential candidate articles became too stressful, I would move over to Beatles articles. until I found out that they have their own furious fights - like the infamous ones over whether the prose should read The Beatles or the Beatles - so I'd come back to Obama and company and pick up the fight again. It goes with the territory. Hope to see you staying around. Tvoz/talk 22:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Beatles/Years Active

There is a discussion occuring here involving debate about whether or not the Beatles were "active" during 1994-1996. Your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Free as a Bird" proposed lede change

FYI, there is a vote taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sopranos, infobox

Hi. I saw your name in the archived discussion at Sopranos talk page. I would like to get your feedback there on a disagreement between myself and another editor. Thanks. -Anon98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tucson shooting

Hello! As you've probably realized, MediaWiki's flawed diff system made it appear as though the changes were significantly more extensive than they actually were (largely because I added a line break, I think).
The main purpose of my edit was to undo a change made yesterday (the insertion of the article's title in bold, which isn't MoS-compliant in this context).
Sorry about (and thanks for correcting) the "January" typo; I don't know how that slipped past me.  :) —David Levy 08:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi - yes, I did realize that, a little late. Sorry about the initial knee-jerk revert. I'm not sure I agree about your change to the first sentence, however - SBE is far from policy, and even MOS:BOLDTITLE is a guideline, not cast in stone. The thing is, this article is in the midst of the GA process, and the reviewer (SilkTork)is the one who reinstated the bolded title wording in the first sentence, so it probably would be a good idea to talk it through and see what the consensus is on that one - it's been discussed before and we've had it both ways. I did a fair amount of editing on this article a while back, but haven't looked at the recent discussions, so I'm not sure what the sense of the group is right now. Anyway - nice to meet you and sorry for the fast trigger! Tvoz/talk 17:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Having checked in on the article periodically, my impression is that it's been fairly stable in this respect (with insertions of the boldface title occasional and short-lived, as demonstrated here).

The style enjoys consensus at the MoS level, but it's taken time to work its way through the encyclopedia, largely due to the other style's inertia; editors unfamiliar with the guideline instinctively emulate the format that they see in most articles. It's common for one to mistakenly assume that the boldface title is "missing" and edit accordingly, which appeared to occur yesterday. (Note that while Steve made numerous improvements, he also introduced a non-U.S.-formatted date, an Easter egg link, and the phrase "Tucson, Arizona USA" [sic].)

I regularly examine newly created articles appearing in the main page's ITN section, and I've been pleased to find the MoS style present increasingly often as awareness of the guideline spreads.

Indeed, SBE isn't a guideline in and of itself, but it accurately describes the reasoning behind the guideline. "2011 Tucson shooting" is merely a description of the event, not a formal or de facto name. In fact, there never has been strong consensus for the article's title, which is retained because alternatives have even less consensus.

Of course, if someone reverts or raises an objection at Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/GA1, I'll gladly discuss the matter further. Nice to meet you too! (: —David Levy 18:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Wachowskis

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Wachowskis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey there

I happened to be swinging by another article and happened to notice some vandalism, then figured I'd check on the watchlist. I see not much has changed since I ladt stopped by the Obama article. Still the same "He's not A-A!" and "OMG!! Why aren't all the criticisms of him covered in detail!!". As for the vandal.. Maybe try the escalating vandalism tags? Even then it is going to be hard to get the ban hammer dropped because he only does it once every couple of days.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The one I reverted was pretty clear vandalism. I didn't look at his other posts and just assumed. Oh well. If he isn't vandalizing the article, nothing you can do, but keep hitting the undo link. Hate when that happens. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fanny White

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fanny White. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tamil people

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tamil people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Callista Gingrich vandalism

Hello Tvoz, since your reply on Callista Gingrich's discussion page, vandalism has indeed continued to be a problem, and some is still there now. Would you please look again and consider adding back the semi-protection? Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

See my reply on Talk: Callista Gingrich. Tvoz/talk 07:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012

I shared your concern recently at the above article along with other editors. Jimbo seems to be Ok with it See User:Joes talk page...so end of story....or is it? Check at campaign article history since some discussion was removed. Stay in touch. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have a chance. I'm glad that Joe is now identifying himself and confining his comments to Talk pages - and I actually appreciate it when anyone points out any factual errors - but my concern, as you saw, is about micro-managing how we write articles, our procedures, etc., for the spin. I think it bears watching, but he does get points for seeming to understand our need for transparency, which I think is what Jimbo was responding positively to. Tvoz/talk 09:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My concern continues about the Major issue of paid operatives. I'm reading a lot of support from surprising sources for PR involvement but PR is not Political Communications directing. I am not offended or dissuade by those that think all is well, "Jimbo says its Ok so it must be OK!". Its not OK. Slanted editing to twist an article into a campaign sticker, by anybody of either (all) parties, corrupts the product and ruins our reputation. Its too bad Jimbo can't see the "behind the 8 ball" mess he has generated. Above and beyond the Newt pages what can be done to engage editors that see the dangers of paid editors and their volunteer corps? The Newt pages just result in arguing which gets nowhere. The general election are around the corner. User:joe may be the last operative to step forward with a sign, "Here I AM" ..Any ideas? ```Buster Seven Talk 02:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have engaged Jimbo in a discussion about paid operatives, etc. See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Paid operatives. Tks.```Buster Seven Talk 03:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

CNN

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/06/gingrich-spokesman-defends-wikipedia-edits/

You have some more media mentions to add to the top of your userpage. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I just saw it. You can tell that the political silly season is underway! Tvoz/talk 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Tvoz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

```Buster Seven Talk 21:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

=Speedy deletion

=All of a sudden Ive become a bother. But, an important project WP:WEaPOn (about Paid Operatives) I have initiated is up for speedy. Can you assist? I want to play by the rules but they seem stacked against an honest effort to record a history of an event as it happens. Urgent. Any comment you might offer would be greatly appreciated. TY. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)