User talk:Romanspinner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome
Hey there, Romanspinner. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian and decide to stay! Here are a few good links for newcomers (or "oldcomers" for reference):
By the way, you should sign and date your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Three tildes (~~~) produces just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
Great, just what we need around this place... more people dizzy in Italy. :) Cheers. --LV (Dark Mark) 07:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- I got your email. It's no problem. Many of the problems here at WP are the small, minor errors that are sometimes the hardest to recognise as errors. Good job on catching those. Keep up the good work, if you feel so inclined. Cheers. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging Image:GMoore.jpg
 |
|
Thanks for uploading Image:GMoore.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. feydey 03:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Hertzog JBM.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hertzog JBM.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 03:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Godfrey.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Godfrey.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Hitchcock episodes AfD
Don't worry if people don't agree with you on an AfD, that's why we have the debates. :) I agree it's pretty lame that the lists contain almost no other info; I guess Hitchcock doesn't have the fans Pokemon and Buffy have, but that's systemic bias for ya. I think the main point, though, is that articles that need improvement generally don't improve by being deleted. Anyway, I've been working lately on an Introduction to Deletion Process because I think newcomers to deletion don't always know what to read and are confused about some simple things. It's still in the very early stages, but I hope it will be informative. Mangojuicetalk 23:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Once the AfD is over, let's try to improve the lists. My thought is that we should expand the information in whatever way is possible, and take it out of that table format (which is actually why the article is so "long", it's because of all the HTML code). If it gets to be too much we can split it up by season. We can note things like who directed what episode and so on. My feeling is, List of Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes directed by Alfred Hitchcock is only borderline-encyclopedic, but List of Famous Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes is a much more reasonable prospect for a secondary list. Still, lists of all the episodes should be here. Mangojuicetalk 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ronnie Lee
Hi RS, for future reference, there's no need to wikify stand-alone years, or to wikify a title, and then immediately after it to wikify its abbreviation and redirect (e.g. British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and BUAV). [1] Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dates
RS, I see you are systematically linking stand-alone years. The MoS allows editors to decide whether to do this or not. There is no need for it, and editors should not systematically go through articles either linking or delinking. Dates only need to be linked when there is a month and day, or month, day, and year, in order to allow editors' preferences to work. Otherwise, it makes no difference. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Linking of dates and edits to Ronnie Lee
I do apologize, SlimVirgin for some of my edits on Ronnie Lee. My normal practice before editing is to check the history of the entry to ascertain the standing and length of service to Wikipedia of its creator before proceding with the edit. Unless I see an obvious error or missing very specific, non-date links, I tend to leave the articles of established editors untouched (obviously inapplicable to entries with multiple edits by numerous editors, which are fair game). Unfortunately, in applying myself to this recent spate of edits, I deviated from that practice, primarily because of the number of articles I had to go through and the time involved.
My primary goal in this endeavor is to re-alphabetize the names in some of the Category listings, particularly in "Category:Date of birth missing", "Category:Year of birth missing" and "Category:Year of death missing". To use the Ronnie Lee example, or for that matter Jeane Ireine Biya or Alexander Preis, as you well know, unless one enters "Category:Year of birth missing|Lee, Ronnie", the Category will alphabetize "Ronnie Lee" under "R". Many users, possibly the majority, don't know, or disregard that fact. This accounts for the unusually large number of alphabetically-corrective edits I had made at a single sitting. As a rule, I do not make small edits on large numbers of entries, but focus on editing a single, longer entry. Furthermore, unlike some editors whose contributions may amount to simply adding a comma or an additional Category, I tend to read and revise the entire entry. In the case of my most recent edits, even though my main aim was to streamline the Categories, I felt that each entry deserved a thoughtful scrutiny and re-evaluation. If you care to check my edits for the previous months, you'll see that most of them are rarely reverted—the majority of them concern poor syntax, sentence construction, missing words, spelling errors and the like. When I am reverted, it's because the original author feels strongly about a personal peculiarity or a particular stylization, such as in the case of the "Ingrid Newkirk|Newkirk, Ingrid" formulation in "Ronnie Lee". When that happens, unless the revert is done by an anonymous vandal or makes no logical sense, I accept that it's a personal preference on the part of the other editor and drop the matter.
Some editors don't like the red non-links, such as in the Kim Stallwood instance in "Ronnie Lee" and I try to avoid those myself, except when I feel that the link might or should already be there. I always test the links in the preview before saving the page, but unfortunately the red non-link in the "Stallwood" case escaped my notice. Also I don't normally put links on both the full names of organizations and the acronyms or abbreviations that follow, e.g. (PETA), (BUAV) and (SHAC). These were merely entered to ascertain whether a redirect to the acronyms existed, and were meant to be removed after the preview. Again, because of the sheer volume of work involved, I overlooked them.
Such reverts of some aspects of my edits that did occur, were for the same reason that you pointed out—linking of isolated dates. I do not make such links arbitrarily or wholesale, but primarily to emphasize and call attention to the year or era that a particular event happened. Jayjg took issue with my date links in the Robert S. Wistrich entry that the two of you have created, but let my other changes stand. Also, I do not "systematically go through articles either linking or delinking". As I indicated, I normally concentrate on one or two articles—this was the largest number of edits I've done in one day, all for the purpose of putting the names in the Category in alphabetical order. Most of my links are not for words or ideas (unless they are very specific to the theme of the article), but to people and places that have an entry, but have not been linked, e.g. the previously improperly linked De La Salle College in the Warren Fellows entry.
I am not a serial date linker and have in fact removed many more isolated date links than I have put in. The lists that I have created or contributed to, e.g. List of playwrights all have unlinked birth and death years. Many novice editors are under the illusion that all dates need to be linked—thus whenever I see in an entry that I am editing, a film, a book or a play followed by a linked date in parentheses (2006), I take care to delink, unless it points to something specific, such as "2006 in music|2006".
Finally, I am disappointed that someone such as you, who has devoted so much time and dedication to Wikipedia, has treated some of my edits as if they were made by a vandal. Jayjg retained what appeared to be useful in my edits to the "Wistrich" entry and only reverted my date links, but you made wholesale anti-vandal reverts in my edits for Jeane Ireine Biya, Alexander Preis, Luke Sutherland and Jo Jo Laine, without seemingly even bothering to read them and keep the "good parts", not to even mention the Category additions and re-alphabetizations. A number of unique links to people and places in the reverted entries, e.g. Yaounde, Jimmy Miller and Berklee College of Music were thus disregarded. Even my corrected typo of "Laine" as "Lain" was reverted. Incidentally, within an hour of your "Sutherland" revert, it was reverted back to my version by Mais oui!, another "Barnstar" recipient.
You were fair, I must admit, with my edits to the Frederic Seaman entry, only properly changing another editor's derogatory word, but I don't think I'm being thin-skinned in feeling that the anti-vandal reverts were unjust and quite unwarranted. Romanspinner 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kyle Clancy/"Category:Year of birth"/"Category:Date of birth"
Greetings, Dudesleeper----same as you, I'm working on a big project and, as they have it in that stub-sorting line, you can help just by continuing to do what you've been doing. My giant project, as I've written in my previous message to an administrator, is to properly organize the thousands of mis-alphabetized names in all of the "Category" listings. As you know if, at the bottom of "John Doe"'s stub or full bio, a "Category", such as "Category:Living people|Doe, John" is input as "Category:Living people" or "Category:Living people|John Doe", then "John Doe" will be alphabetized under "J", instead of "D". You've been doing it properly, but scores of other editors haven't been.
There is also another "Category" problem. We met at the Kyle Clancy edit, over the Category:Date of birth missing/Category:Year of birth missing uncertainty. Ideally for the sake of clarity, but awkwardly sounding, the Category:Date of birth missing should have been called Category:Year of birth present, but month and day missing and the Category:Year of birth missing should have been called Category:Day, month and year of birth missing.
There are nearly a thousand biographies which begin with either, for example, "John Doe (born 1950)" or "John Doe (1950—August 26, 2006)". Since the year of birth is not missing, these can only go into the Category:Date of birth missing. On the other hand, there are about ten times as many bios, especially stubs of present-day individuals, like Kyle Clancy, which then can only go into the Category:Year of birth missing.
Many editors hedge their bets by putting the no-date subjects of their biographies into both the "Date" and the "Year" Categories, reasoning that "Date missing" Category must mean only the day and the month (August 26) and the "Year missing" Category must mean only the year (2006). At first, it seems to make sense, until we realize that the two categories are mutually exclusive. If "John Doe" was only in Category:Year of birth missing, but not Category:Date of birth missing, that would mean that his biography would have to begin with "John Doe (born August 26)", which, while popular when movie magazines write about actors, is never done in Wikipedia.
Also, if we were to use that method, there wouldn't even be any point in keeping both of the "Categories" — I recently offered a proposal to delete the Category:Year of birth missing and merge its contents into the more-readily-understood Category:Date of birth missing, but withdrew the idea almost immediately, realizing that to search out missing dates, we need every detail sorted in a separate "Category".
For example, yesterday I sorted a short entry on "Samuel Cromwell (died December 1, 1842)", who was hanged on a US Navy ship in mid-ocean on suspicion that he might be planning a mutiny. His bio was under Category:Date of birth missing, instead of the more-correct Category:Year of birth missing. We know the exact date of his death, but his birth will probably always remain unknown. So I transferred him to a third, even-more-correct, Category:Date of birth unknown|Cromwell, Samuel, for long-ago individuals whose birth date will probably never be known.
I hope all of the above provided some room for discussion on the Kyle Clancy "Year"/"Date" uncertainty and you would let me know your thoughts on the subject and how you want to handle this "Category" in your future biographies and stubs. Romanspinner talk 07:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Year/Date of birth missing
Hello. I just noticed that you have been trailing me around the project removing double Year/Date missing categories I have been placing in articles. I also noticed on your talk page that these categories are intended to be mutually exclusive. To that end, I have revised the description for Date missing to explain its use. Now that I know better how these categories were imagined, I will use them in that manner. Hopefully, clarifying that intent on the category page will prevent others from misusing them. Erechtheus 07:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ray Heatherton
That took quite some rescuing. The original author did not seem to care, and never respinded to messages (yet). Good job well done. Now we can see the wood from the trees. Fiddle Faddle 08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words. The original author has a very recognizable writing style and is a veteran researcher and historian of children's television show hosts of the 1950s and 1960s. I have seen his writings regarding these individuals over the past years on sites devoted to TV nostalgia as well as on IMDb biographical entries for the same people. I suspect he may not have regular access to a computer and possibly did these entries from a library, transferring his research from floppy disc Word files or some such, thus accounting for the formatting difficulties and also for his inability to respond. I have never seen him submit anything to Wikipedia before this clutch of articles appeared and over the next day or two or three, I will attempt to Wikify and clarify the remainder of his submissions. These personalities may mean very little or nothing to Wiki users in Britain and around the world, but maintain an aura of nostalgic affection to aging New York-area baby boomers who attach the memory of presumably happier days of their childhood and adolescence to these mostly-disappeared shadows of a long-gone past. Romanspinner 09:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- My reaction when I saw them is "Great content but oh heck look at the mess!". I reckoned it needed a US literate person to do more to them. Library and such I can understand. I wish he'd looked after he posted, though :) Fiddle Faddle 10:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requesting removal of autoblock
- Update: The autoblock on this one-day IP address resolved itself the following day when the IP address automatically changed.
[edit] SFD notification
This message is to notify you that a stub template and category that you created ({{WWII-bio-stub}} and Cat:World War II biography stubs) are up for deletion at WP:SFD. Please join the discussion. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re: Category:Date of birth missing
Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.
By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Since your note is obviously in response to the emendations I made within the descriptive introductions to the four "Date" categories (but, most specifically, to "Date of birth missing"), I can only reply by the evidence of my words within those introductions.
- Leaving your "CAUTION" in "Date of birth missing" unchanged, I expressly elucidated the purpose of this and the other three categories, since numerous editors continue to misunderstand that "Date" in Wikipedia terms means month/day or day/month. While I have been spending much of my time on the "Date unknown" categories, which far too many editors have inappropriately been applying to contemporary individuals, there is no implied encouragement in any of the words I used in spelling out the purpose of the category in question, for editors to inappropriately search out the month and day of birth.
- I have been slowly attending to these, and a number of other, unrelated, categories for the last eight months and while I originally did add missing months and days of birth to biographies of living persons, those were only from obvious sources, such as IMDb or the individual's own website. My last additions of that nature, however, were in late October-early November. I became aware around that time of your systematically going through the "Date of birth missing" category and removing it from the living on the basis of the principle of privacy. While I question the basic assumptions behind that policy (especially if the information exists in research resources, such as the H.W. Wilson Biography Index or Who's Who), I also feel there is no specifically corresponding need-to-know principle at stake and therefore also no imperativeness to challenge the matter, particularly in view of the apparent consensus of the community. Romanspinner (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- An additional note to the above: I just noticed your edit to the Tom Alter entry, deleting "Category:Date of birth missing". It appears likely that your message to me was prompted by the additional categories I appended to "Alter", rather than my annotations to the four "Date" category introductions. While I remarked above that I have not added a single "Date of birth missing" to a living person's biography since last October, at first glance it may seem that one of the four categories I added to "Alter" was, indeed, "Date of birth missing". That impression, however, would be incorrect, as a glance at the "Alter" history will show that another editor takes the credit (debit?) for that category in his/her edit summary. Even though, while editing, I delete or replace incontovertably incorrect categories, I consider this one a judgment call. Tom Alter is a top movie celebrity in India, hardly someone who seeks the privacy and anonymity of a hidden day and month of birth. But, as I noted before, I leave such matters to the consensus of the community, irrespective of whether the date of birth is that of Tom Alter or Tom Cruise.Romanspinner(talk) 10:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
