User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"I." Compton-Burnett

Thanks for clarifying this. <KF> 22:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Tamla-Motown.

Either "Tamla-Motown" or "Tamla Motown" is likely correct. "Tamla-Motown" was hyphenated on the Motown page before I ever edited Wikipedia. --FuriousFreddy 01:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

re: The dark side of the moon

Which comment is that exactly? Can you link me to it? Lugnuts 07:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

haha, I should of looked at that a little closer! Thanks. Lugnuts 07:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Flee-Rekkers

If you want to recreate it, and are able to source it showing that it meets WP:BAND, then go for it. Non-notable band stubs do get deleted quite fast, but if you can correct the problems that got it deleted, in this case no assertion of meeting the music notability criteria, then you should be OK. - TexasAndroid 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking dates

Hello. Why did you remove my date links in Hans Pfitzner? I thought I read somewhere - alas I can't find where - that such were always desirable, except when excessive. Rothorpe 19:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

check out the mos on overlinking. cheers! --emerson7 | Talk 19:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann‎

Sorry, I didn't see your edit before I rolled back to the previous one. I have fixed it. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man has made it clear that single sentence paras are against WP:MOS and they would jeopardise the article's GA status. TerriersFan 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to thank you for your invaluable work in fixing the details of Portuguese names. TerriersFan 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rock n roll

Bill haley and the comets did movies Don't Knock the Rock/Rock Around the Clock.Also Elvis did movies so leave that section alone.Much apreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrowman980 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sparrowman980

Yeah, I see it – thanks for the update. I've been cleaning up the messes this guy has made for quite a while now ... ha. -- RG² 20:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I will continue until things are set straight,thank you!Sparrowman980 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Praia da Luz

Hi, following a request from an anon on the talk page I have added details about an archaeological site. Perhaps you would be good enough to look at the entry against the original Portuguese source and see if it should be corrected/amplified, please? TerriersFan 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Figueira

Hi, the unintended bolding came about because the Figueira link was a circular link that came back to the Figueira page. I have now disamb'd the village as Figueira (Faro), the style being to disamb on the municipality. HTH. TerriersFan 16:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rothorpe, just curious about note number 9 on Madeleine´s dissapearance; the BBC link has been deleted or it never was there? miguelmoura33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelmoura333 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Now fixed. TerriersFan 23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sings and plays?

From the songs that i've heard he doesn't do both, however I can't say for sure, generally speaking it's hard to multi-task and not many people do it. Good reference points would be if you can find interviews in music magazines from the past with him, I don't know where you're from (blues isn't popular in england) but there are libraries or websites that archive magazine articles- some of these guys may interview BB King and you may find out there, type him into myspace and see what you get (you can quote him), I got a good interview for Jeff Beck a while back, however that on it's own won't be a reliable source, if you can find books on singing the blues they will mention BB King because he is such a big name for singing (he has duets, backing singers and generally speaking he is a big name for the blues) and it'll give you some kind of acdemic perspective on the blues. (I can't sing so I can't help you there) When I have some free time i'll have a look around and see what I can get.

Do you have any info on BB's playing style, i teaching myself the blues at the moment and it mentions the way he bends and has a section on 'riffs of the masters' but i'll learn it then see if it can be used.--Mikeoman 20:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to write an article we've got to do it right, remember this guys alive so we can't write anecdotal stuff (the lucille bit isn't sourced) it would be better if we got all of our resources together, stick it on the talk page, then one of us can write the proper section, there are people who talk about him, write books about him, if you give me a year I'd be confident to write about his theory bit myself, in the meantime this is what I propose we do (i'll stick it on the discussion page):-

1) talk about his voice- is he baritone, bass etc. and couple that with his lyrics- from what i've heard of him he sings about his bad love life, but he has happier songs like 'playing with my friends', maybe some info about his songwriting process.

2) talk about his band- he has drums, wind instruments etc. and the role of his backing singers. what does he have?

3) what kinds of guitar, amps and effects does he use?

4) who inspired BB king?

5) who did BB inspire- I can name Jeff Beck, Bobby Bland. who else?

6) theory- Is there anything special about the way he solos? to me it's a lot more 'trebley' sounding, he's famous for his solos.

7) Who did BB king do duets with I can name Bobby Bland, U2, who else? we need names of tracks

I think if we answer these 7 points we'll have a good musical style article (do say if there are more)and i'll add these questions to the discussion page so more people can help and people can add books, websites, personal knowledge etc.--Mikeoman 12:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Aranda

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation

Hi, You have removed the external link www.pronouncenames.com. This website is not a commenrcial website. It is also a volunteer-driven website, just like Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.6.149 (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pronunciation&diff=156713279&oldid=156201339 to see what I did. Rothorpe 14:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Aranda: Thanks for the response. This is what I am to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pronunciation&diff=158586330&oldid=156713279 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.242.140 (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So you should be talking to 199... on the right, not to me, on the left. It was my edit that was altered there. Rothorpe 21:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC). By the way, why don't you get yourself a name? Welcome to Wikipedia. Rothorpe 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not the native name of the language...

I thought It was the "native name" box... --Damifb 21:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your kind responde. Yes, I think we should change the consensus on that... How do you even start doing that? lol

Greetings --Damifb 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok! I made you change your mind, so much for my argumentative skills! haha

Stay in touch --Damifb 22:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you went ahead with the rest of the articles. Thanks a lot.--Damifb 21:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! The same happened to me. It says it's a "French language infobox." We have to figure it out how to edit that. I'm going to ask some more experienced Wikipedian.--Damifb 00:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Firstly; I agree with your 'local' compromise'.

Would you help me keep the reconstruction out of the article, please? (see talk). I am about to revert the anon again and will 3RR warn if he reinserts. If he reinserts for a third time I need another editor to revert otherwise I am edit warring! TerriersFan 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Delius

Hi, left a note on Delius talkpage. Cheers, Dr Steven Plunkett 00:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Sorry to say, I don't approve of Citizendium! Good luck with it though. Dr Steven Plunkett 12:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it will be too exclusive, too narrow, and written by people who think they know best. I prefer the anarchist model to the controlled one, and I admire the ability of Jimbo to relinquish control. No constables here, thanks, no worship of academics, no reserved acidity when you disagree, just a light dust-up and move on. I like working and thinking here, but couldn't there. Wikipedia is saved, because there is no end, no final answers, it is just a learning process which can go on for ever and includes everyone. I don't trust 'Clubs' much, and I don't believe in the Holy Grail. Dr Steven Plunkett 15:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite happy just plodding on. I like the fact that a good synthetic article, if I write it, appears as a stub in google within a few days, and provides a link for millions of worldwide googlers. What more can you ask? This is to be useful in the world Dr Steven Plunkett 23:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have abbreviated the above message. Sorry (I need a break). Dr Steven Plunkett 03:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Dr Steven Plunkett 13:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your email to Veropedia. I have sent you a response. Hope to hear from you soon. Danny 09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I saw some of the stuff back in forth, and your new name, but do you mean *intentionally* blocked for 24 hours or mistakenly? If the former, why?! That reminds, I used CZ to send you an email several days ago -- did you ever get it? Hayford Peirce 20:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's sort of the story that I pictured vaguely in my mind's eye. Hope that when the 24 hours are up that you'll be re-enabled one way or another. What a Catch-22!

Glad the Chinese Chow was tasty -- I have some spicy Korean pork sitting in the frigo waiting to be finished off: we cooked it ourselves the other night in a Korean place with one of their strange BBQs. Quite tasty. Have you looked at the Almond pressed duck (at CZ) article I did a while ago -- that's the Chinese Chow of my dreams. Next time I make it I'll take a bunch of pictures to post.

Here in Tucson we have Kitt Peak, which I can see on clear mornings. And the U. of A. has a very good astronomy and space science department(s), I believe. A guy right behind my house remodeled his home a year or so ago with an added second-story area -- turns out to house his amateur/semi-pro/pro-type telescope.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayford Peirce (talk • contribs) 22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Email

I dunno where it went: I clicked on the link on the left-hand column that says E-mail this user. So I sent you a message saying that if you gave me your email address I would send you the Segoo forehand picture. I know that it was sent, but CZ doesn't tell the sender *where* it is sent. Hayford Peirce 22:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Método 3

Hi, I was wondering if you might be interested in writing a page on Método 3? This agency is undoubtedly notable, but a knowledge of Spanish is probably needed to research key facts, and other notable investigations, since the English sources naturally focus on their MMc investigation. TerriersFan 03:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Maddie 129

Hi, would you check the text of Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Maddie 129 against this, please? TerriersFan 03:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

IPA templates

Hi,

Just to let you know, we now have IPA templates that link to pronunciation keys that are more accessible than the main IPA article. They are explained at {{IPA}}. kwami 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I am delighted to award you this Barnstar for consistent attention to detail. TerriersFan (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Murder of Meredith Kercher

An article that you have been involved in editing, Murder of Meredith Kercher, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Meredith Kercher. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you check this please?

Hi, would you check this edit against the sources which are in Portuguese, please? TerriersFan (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Maddie/Barry Jameson edits

Hey Rothorpe, I noticed you reverted the last edit by Mr Jameson (with whom I'm in ongoing dialogue about his current drive on the use of the term p(a)edophilia). You didn't add an edit summary - could I (rudely) ask you to do this so you could explain why you're reverting his edits? I'm trying to keep all parties calm here and I think it would help if we all tried to keep our edits transparent and clear? In any case, all the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See Harry's latest edits - Rothorpe (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I have. I've asked him to do the same and he's keen to help. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Madeleine Portuguese TV series?

Hi, is this legit or is it a hoax? If legit do you have any reliable Portuguese sources, please? TerriersFan (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings returned (reciprocated)

Thanks for your new year goodwill message, I hope it is a happy and productive one for you too! best wishes, Dr Steven Plunkett (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bernard van Dieren

Sorry I deleted the Delius reference, that was an oversight in the merge. I'm not an expert on Van Dieren, but merely bumped into the existence of two articles of him in wikipedia, the much longer one under a wrong spelling. Unfortunately, my "merged and wikified" description was not clear enough; I should have mentioned the "merged from" article, especially since it seems that that source has now been deleted from wikipedia. I don't see my edit: "merged into Bernard van Dieren" (i.e. changed the article in a redirect) that should have been there around the same time. Possibly the misspelling was so odd that some administrator thought it unlikely and deleted it altogether, but more likely it simply was "Bernard Van Dieren". This means that whoever actually wrote the article now completely goes uncredited. That's not right. I don't see how one can preserve both histories when merging two articles though. Afasmit (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann

Tell me, are there any circumstances at all when edits to your article are not immediately reverted by either you or one of the other ethusiasts? You and the others are demonstrating a very unhealthy attitude to the philosophy of Wikipedia. 82.20.28.142 (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary: 'sorry, but these are unnecessary changes, and not improvements'. I take it you don't agree? Rothorpe (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They were changes that didn't appear to detract from the overall quality of the article. I personally wouldn't have made them, but if I had been so inclined I would have tried to impove on them rather than just revert them. The article suffers badly from the "revert first, ask questions later" syndrome, and it's demoralising for editors constantly to have their work reverted without a second thought. 82.20.28.142 (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought reverting them was the best way to improve on them. Rothorpe (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bishop Ellis Catholic Primary School

Hi I should be grateful if you would watchlist this page - I have just noticed that an editor removed a sourced section about Madeleine McCann. 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary music

Hi Rothorpe, I wonder if you would be interested in joining the new WikiProject Contemporary music that I helped organize recently? Our goal is to help improve Wikipedia’s coverage of the subject. Best, --S.dedalus (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Diacrit

Got time to help defend “markèd” at Marginalism? —SlamDiego_←T 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Eugene Jolas Portuguese dialects Critique of Pure Reason Fly Pan Am Stephen Dedalus Idris Muhammad History of East Timor Judeo-Portuguese Stavanger Phi Velorum Walpurgis-Nacht Northern English WCWM Transition (literary journal) Gandia Simple Portuguese List of English words of Portuguese origin Steven Epstein (music producer) Ã

Cleanup Hot Latin Tracks Jogo do Pau David Frost Merge History of the Spanish language Guitar tuning Gomes Add Sources Carlos Mota Pinto Whirlin' Disc Records Lusitanic Wikify John Patton (musician) Flow measurement Juan Ruiz Expand Agence France-Presse Aragonese language Diphthong

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Arão, Portugal

Hi, I have started this page to knock over a red link in the Madeleine page but I have not got very far. There is a page on the Portuguese Wikipedia here but that is about a different village at the other end of the country :-( Do you have any Portuguese sources, please, that say, as minimum, which municipality in Faro (district) it is in and perhaps the population? TerriersFan (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Early stages

Hi, references 25 and 26 (numbering as at time of my last edit) are being used to support the previous four sentences. I wonder if you would look at the sources, please, to see if they can be split to source more precisely? TerriersFan (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

changing quotations

Hi. I'm glad you contributed to poshlost. However, I reverted your standardizing of the transliteration (poshlost', poshlust) in quotations, because I don't feel we can change the spelling of quotations except for obvious mistakes, and then we need to indicate the changes. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right that something needed to be said about the different spellings. There was already a comment about one, and I added another, so I think it's better now. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits from Banned User HC and SP-IPs

G'day,

Edits, like This One (21:26, 10 May 2008 92.11.13.59) from banned user HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) are per Wikipedia's banning policy: states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

He has been editing under IP NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.13.255.255 since January.

Please be on the lookout and revert at will. IP4240207xx (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Madeleine timeline

An IP has helpfully found a link to the police final report here. However, he states that it includes a definitive timeline of the disappearance. Would you say that it does, please? Also, please take a look at how I have summarised the ref (currently 124). I have put their report reference as a title since I couldn't find an actual title - is there a better title, please? TerriersFan (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What Do You Know?

Regarding this entry, I don't actually remember the show at all as it ended some years before I was born. The information comes from a potted history by Ian Gillies in the 1986 "Brain of Britain" quiz book. If you know more about the show, then please do put it in. --Q4 (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

a typical WP cretin. Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

John Barry

As I stated when I reverted the edit, John Barry linked to a disambig page which did not show an article about Columbia Graphophone recording artist John Barry. The closest was the noted film composer named John Barry (composer), but that does not indicate that he recorded for the EMI/Columbia label. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Edwin Apps

A tag has been placed on Edwin Apps 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 a person or group of people, 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 biographies.

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), 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. Ipatrol (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some instructions that maybe clearer, I hope they help. Ikip (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The article you created was just deleted?

		The article you created was just deleted?
		All is not lost. Here is what you can do right now:
		Many administrators will be happy to give you a copy of your deleted article, either by putting it on a special user page for you (a process called userfication) or by e-mailing you a copy. List of administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles (empty) no pages or subcategories Once you have the article, you can try to resolve the issues why it was deleted. How to find the reason for deletion (not required to get your article undeleted) You can find out why your article was deleted: Special:Log/delete Enter the name of the article, then click "Go" On this log page, once you enter the name of your page, this will show you who deleted it and why. If the reason doesn't make sense, try clicking any links on the reason, or you can ask by typing {{help}} followed by your question on your talk page. Or you can ask any administrator to tell you why it was deleted. 1. If your article is deleted because of notability, it was deleted because you didn't give us enough information to confirm that people had published articles, books, or other publications to verify the claims your article made. You'll simply need to find some published articles that covered the subject of your article. While this may not be possible for some subjects (your cat, your garage band), you'd be surprised how easy it is, and people are happy to help on the help desk or in projects like the Article Rescue Squadron if you ask politely and tell them as much as you can. 2. If your article was deleted because it was a "copyvio", or copyright violation, an administrator removed it because it violated someone's copyright on their work. Only public domain information can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images. You can rewrite the article so that it is no longer a copyright violation, you can request permission from the copyright holder to republish their work, or if and only if you are the copyright holder you can donate your work to the project or release it under a license compatible with Wikipedia's. If you've repaired the article, or you believe the reasons for deleting the article were in error, you can dispute the deletion at Deletion Review. Generally, you must show how the previous deletion(s) were in error, but this is the place to resolve disputes about whether a deletion was wrong.

Ikip (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron

Here to help articles tagged for rescue! Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found Hi, Rothorpe, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged 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 quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! 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! Ikip (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Cast Your Fate to the Wind

All done, go ahead. Trivialist (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Carl Shapiro photo to upload

I see you have been working on the page: i have found 2 photos of: Carl J. Shapiro on p. 1., and his wife and his daughter, Ellen, and son-in law Robert Jaffe on p. 6. they are in pdf. form. will you do the honors, please? i don't know how to convert to jpg. http://www.dana-farber.org/abo/news/publications/impact/2008/2008-spring.pdf

i did post it on the talk page for shapiro several weeks ago, but no rsvp. Jaffe's should be on his own page, and on the Cohmad Securities page and on the Participants in the Madoff investment scandal Page.

If you know how to convert to jpg, would you write it out step-by-step on my talk page? thanx.

Furtive admirer (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pye Records

It's sourced in the fifth line (depending on how wide your screen is) of the 'Founding' paragraph. Pyrrhus16 13:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified the lead. Pyrrhus16 13:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Larcher de Brito Page

Thanks for the edit on the shy links. Could use more help though, how do i add the "citation needed" tooltip? thanks in advance user:artistabastuz

Bunnies

When I was editing it back around '05 or so, I'm pretty sure that *I* moved to it Bunny and that some WP cretin/vandal later changed it again to Henry, whoever he is. Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hubert Sumlin question

thanks for the addition to the Hubert Sumlin article, but some further details are really necessary. i've left my questions/requests on the talk page there Sssoul (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry about the case of mistaken identy, and for leaving such a mess in the article! i got distracted and then forgot to go back and complete what i'd started. thanks very much for cleaing it up Sssoul (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1066 and All That

Thank you very much for the encouraging word.

Surfeit of palfreys (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Roland Kirk Beer

How does it advertise if the name of the brewery isn't mentioned? The inserted line into the article will simply mention that he is on a beer label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingleheimer Smith (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

mingus discography- jazzical versus jazz

"jazzical moods" is a two edition set that seems to feature the same content as "jazz experiments" though leaving out the number "abstractions".

a lesser issue of importance is that the last track "the spur of the moment/echonitus", was printed simply as "the spur of the moment" for "jazz experiments".

other than these two issues and packaging, the only other difference is in the word "jazzical" which is a pretty interesting concept in itself since it blends "jazz" and "classical", an idea which I'm sure influenced gunther schuller to coin the term "third stream" a couple of years later.

thus, my opinion is to list the original and more complete version of the same idea, Jazzical Moods with in parentheses (later reissued as jazz experiments).

I'm curious what you think...

Yes, I agree, especially since two dates were given (before I deleted one) for the issue of Experiments. Rothorpe (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Italian capitalization of songs

Hi. On the Shirley Bassey article, you changed "La vita" to "La Vita", stating that "capitalising La Vita for consistency: Italian sites are capricious about upper/lower".

It is lowercase on the album cover http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/23/Shirley_Bassey_This_Is_My_Life_La_Vita.jpg

of course album covers are not to be relied on for capitalization rules (the priority being artful and catchy) But my research would seem to indicate that the "v" in "La vita" is lowercase.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festival_di_Sanremo_1968 (scroll down to "Non finaliste") http://www.hitparadeitalia.it/sanremo/edizioni/1968.htm (scroll to bottom)

I am of the opinion that it should be "La vita", but I am not an Italian speaker, so I can't be sure. What do you think?--Nyctc7 (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response...I also stumbled on the Mina discography while working on Grande, grande, grande, and the songs are written with the first word capitalized only.--Nyctc7 (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Those hideous dot-underlines"

Hey there, about that note on your userpage.. If you know how to use skins you can configure your monobook.css to hide the underlines on the m's. See Help talk:Watching pages#Underlines on minor edits. -- œ^™ 05:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, sorry for the late reply. I'm not sure why you're still seeing the underlines.. it worked fine on my end.. did you remember to bypass your cache? Are you even using the monobook skin? (Is it set in your My preferences/Appearance settings?). -- œ^™ 03:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not sure why it's not working for you.. you mentioned you were using the vector skin.. have you tried inserting the code in User:Rothorpe/vector.css instead? -- œ^™ 23:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Bassey

Thank you for your recent support on the discussion page for the article. Could you please continue to keep an eye on it. You will see from recent editing that, not for the first time, we have a user trying to force their version of the 'facts' on the whole world. Unless I am completely wrong, it is in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Je t'aime .. moi non plus

Hi.

Why did you revert my minor correction to the plot, concerning Krassky's inability to perform heterosexual sex? You just put '??' as the reason for doing it. As someone else has already picked up, I am in fact correct. So what justifies it? Ironman1104 (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

sources of face oculta

yes, I have this website http://www.ionline.pt/conteudo/32449-face-oculta-be-quer-ouvir-ministro-da-economia-no-parlamento , and the Publico journal from 2 days ago —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOCIALISMEVER (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Astounding Discovery

Have just discovered a very big flaw in Hitler biography ! Need to make urgent change...contact me... Jon Ascton  (talk)

Pay attention to your edition, please!

Hi, Rothorpe! I admire your attention to articles details. However, sometimes you commit big mistakes. For example, in Hermeto Pascoal, you edited and wrote the following sentence: "Between 1996 and 1997, Hermeto surprised the musical world with his project Calendário do Som, in which he recorded a song every day for a year, so that everyone would have a song for his or her birthday". However, Calendário do Som is a book; its songs have never been recorded. I have already repared it. But, please, pay attention to these editions! You are changing a fact. Anyway, good luck with your contributions to Wikipedia! And sorry if you did not like this observation. Victor Silveira (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, it says 'livro' in the Portuguese: I missed that. It really needs to be specified: after all one expects a musician to make records. I'll see what I can do. Thanks for pointing that out. Rothorpe (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rothorpe! I've just read your answer because I've been very busy these days. Well... No problem! Good luck with your editions. Just a little question: are you Portuguese? That's good! I love your country! And it's good to know other Portuguese speakers contributing for English Wikipedia. Good luck again! Victor Silveira (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Novelas Nacionais

Hi, please see ref 76 of Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Novelas Nacionais is red-linked. Is it a reliable source, please? Have I got the name right (please fix it if not)? TerriersFan (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith

At first, excuse me for my late answers, and for my probably bad english (contrary, your italian is very good..!).

Thanks - I'm glad you understood. Your English is fine.

Your observation is right, the Pubblico Ministero is not a person but an.. I don't know the right translation, in italian is organo, in english...Authority ?

Right. Or post or position.

I don't know the italian word for public prosecutor...In Italy the word Pubblico Ministero is used improperly for identify the public prosecutor, so the en.wiki version isn't completely wrong.

Ah, a case of metonymy, I think it's called.

I ask in it.wiki for the exact word.

Good evening...! :-)--Midnight bird (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Right - so for the moment, no need to change anything. Thanks for the prompt reply! Rothorpe (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Richie Benaud

Hi. I've put that photo at the top of the media section. The syntax is not easy and I always copy an existing link and then edit it. If you want to move it lower down the section, copy and paste the whole link. You may need to try it a few times to get the right spot because of the way the text wraps around it. If you want it on the left of the page, just replace "right" with "left". Good luck. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 01:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Instant Karma!

Regarding your edit summary, "in that case why haven't you removed this bit? It is equally speculation", I try to remove blatant speculation and original research when I see it, and especially when it has just been added to a page. Removing speculation shortly after it is added prevents the article from getting worse, and it may stimulate the editor who added the speculation to rewrite the addition and include a citation. So, for example, if you had recently read a book that said Lennon was inspired by (or reminiscing about) "Some Other Guy" when he wrote "Instant Karma!" then you might still have the book handy and that would make it easier for you to rewrite the edit and cite the book. If I wait 3 weeks or 3 months, you may not notice the removal and/or you may not have the book handy anymore.

I didn't remove the other speculation because I didn't notice it. It may have been added years ago. In any case, I am watching hundreds of Beatle-related articles and it's not practical (or fair) to hold me responsible for all the speculation, original research, and unsourced statements in them. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, I've saved the unexpurgated version at the Citizendium. Rothorpe (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are unwilling or unable to provide a source, and Citizendium accepts unsourced content, that's probably best. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Right in all respects. WP's requirement of verifiable sources for things which are easily observable is perhaps one of its less engaging features. Rothorpe (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What is your unsourced statement? That John Lennon was a singer? Or British? Or dead? Something really recondite, I imagine. Hayford Peirce (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(Not my statement, actually.) That the introduction to one song sounds like the introduction to another. No source, dangerous speculation, exterminate. Rothorpe (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Whose statement is it?

If you want to publish your own opinion, there are various ways to do that, for example, you've found a wide-open door at Citizendium. Why waste time complaining about WP when you can edit those pages without fear of people exterminating your unsourced additions? — John Cardinal (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Citizendium looks like a good place for unsourced content. Where else could I find out that John Lennon married Yoko Ono in London on November 9, 1966? — John Cardinal (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've wikilinked the header of this section: look in the history and there's the anonymous culprit, just before my edit.

1966? I'd put it a couple of years later, but I'm no expert. Will look in Wikipedia... Any more constructive criticism? Rothorpe (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it is a fact, not an opinion, that the intro to Instant Karma sounds like that of Some Other Guy. Whether Lennon took it consciously or unconsciously we will never know. Being fond of both records, I was quite pleased when Wikipedia pointed out the similarity, as I had not consciously observed it. Someone else might have added whether the songs, and hence those pairs of notes, were in the same key. Rothorpe (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

While we're discussing facts, I reverted the edit by the IP that said the intro was inspired by "Some Other Guy". Your subsequent edit restored some of the original text but changed it to say the intro was "reminiscent" of "Some Other Guy" rather than inspired by it. That seems like your opinion and your statement to me.

Regarding the meat of the matter, we'll never agree. I think adding a comment like that without a source is wrong for a couple reasons, one being that it implies a connection between the two songs that may or may not exist: there are thousands of songs that start with a two-note or two-chord pickup, and so they are all vaguely reminiscent of each other. Did the IP editor do a survey of the songs that Lennon played (or heard!) to determine that no others had a similar intro? If a reliable source draws a connection between the two songs based on the similarity and/or some other evidence, then we can add it to the article, attribute the statement to the source, and readers can draw a conclusion about the likelihood of a connection based on their own opinion of the source. If no reliable source makes the statement, but we add it to the article, then WP is no better than a fan site where people add whatever trivia they want and it's OK. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was pointing out to Hayford that the edit didn't originate with me. You were right to criticise 'inspired', but I see no harm in 'reminiscent'. Were I able to publish an article that made passing mention of the similarity of those introductions, then I could quote myself! The reliance on sources is a device. If it hasn't been noted, it's not notable, that's the mantra. Rothorpe (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit did originate with you; "inspired by" is different from "reminiscent of". If you publish an article, you can't add reference it in WP; someone else can if your article (or whatever) qualifies as a reliable source. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit comparing the introductions didn't originate with me: that was what was 'not my statement'. And an anonymous or pseudonymous editor can easily quote himself. Anyway, let's give peace a chance. Happy Christmas, war is over. Rothorpe (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "electric piano; I would mention Ray Charles's What'd I Say, but that'd be OR..." I guess it was a brief cease-fire rather than a true peace, eh?

By the way, "with a backing band featuring an electric piano, an unusual sound in pop music at the time" should be sourced. The assertion that there is an electric piano in the song is unlikely to be challenged, but the second part needs a reliable source. Got one? — John Cardinal (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CTM election notice

WikiProject Contemporary music



Hi and hello! We are currently electing our first coordinator, see Election: Coordinator for 2010. If you are interested in being a candidate, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. Nominations are open until Sunday 3 January. You can see more information about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Coordinator.

P.S. You are currently listed on the project participants list. Are you still active on the project? If so, please reconfirm your name on the Members list. Thanks and good editing!

EMI

You may want to participate in the EMI Group Ltd talk page about renaming the article back to EMI. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re

Excuse me for delay...I think that the italian's Public Prosecutor is the Procuratore della Repubblica.

Bye... :-)--Midnight bird (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary and his relationship to I4UK

Hi,

Thanks for your comments about Anjem Choudary and is he the leader of I4UK, the BBC did 'on screen caption' him as former leader (25sec in on the cited clip) and to avoid any WP:BLP issues I think the wording "Prior to its proscription it was led by ..." should stay. Codf1977 (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Rothorpe (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I don't agree that it is clutter - there is a long (well very long in fact) discussion on the I4UK talk page here about the opening lines of the lead, revolving around the words was and is, and so in an attempt to stop any WP:BLP issues, I chose the words carefully to make sure that it cannot be miss-interpreted as to when he stoped being the leader. Codf1977 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You may have a point about "over-cautious" - but I would prefer the term "conservatively written" (taken from WP:BLPSTYLE) Codf1977 (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher, Possible Bleaching of Crime Scene

Hi Rothorpe,

I made 2 minor edits to this section and you did an 'undo.' I don't have any particular agenda and find the situation as confusing as the article. Particularly all the contradictions in peoples' testimony. My reason for the edits was that the article incorrectly reports as established fact that bleach was purchased on the morning after the murder. The article (correctly) does not go into the details, but the trial transcripts show that a shop owner testified in court that he sells bleach for 1.09 Euros, and he had seen Amanda Knox in his shop on the morning after the murder, but he does not know what she may or may not have purchased. Yet she was seen in the cleaning aisle. Independently of that, the prosecutor at the time released a lot of information to the press, and one journalist wrote that he had information (from the Italian police?) saying that till receipts had been found. These till receipts were not ever produced in court. There is indeed a lot of conflicting testimony about mops mobile phones and so-on, but the clear information about the bleach is that it was leaked to the press that till receipts had been found, but these have never been produced, and the price of bleach at a different supermarket was established in court to have been 1.09 Euros, and the shop owner testified that he had seen Amanda Knox in the cleaning aisle of that shop. It is not clear that this is the same shop as the one from which journalists reported that police had told them they had found till receipts.

I know this is a complicated explanation on my part, but the precise information is that journalists reported having been told that till receipts had been found (but these were not produced in court), and separately from that, a shop owner from a possibly different shop reported in court that the price of bleach in his shop is 1.09 Euros, and that he had seen Amanda Knox in his shop on the morning after the murder.

These are very precise facts.

My edit was to replace the statement that till receipts were found with the statement that in 2007 a journalist wrote that this is the case. There was never any more recent confirmation of the existence of the till receipts.

My second edit was to replace 'the' supermarket with 'a' supermarket, as it was never discovered if the reciepts mentioned in the 2007 article were for the same amount of 1.09 or whether they are from the same supermarket.

One of the prosecutors (Mignini) is under investigation for using incorrect methods, and he is the one whom Amanda Knox claimed had said incorrectly that he had scientific proof of her presence at the flat on the night of the murder.

I honestly do not know what to make of all this information but Wikipedia has a responsibility to present things clearly and factually, and this includes not reporting a journalists' claims of what the police said as statements of fact if they subsequently were never established in court.

A prosecutor's strategy may indeed be to release a bit of misinformation to try to elicit confessions from people. Well and good. But Wikipedia should report things that are established as true.

Again, I wish to be very clear, I have no agenda and am very confused by the suspects' testimony which seems to contradict fact and logic. But it does not help to have imprecise and unverified information in Wikipedia. I am sure you agree with me.

I am not logged in but my user name is CreateAngelos and the main article I wrote was the one for Weldon Angelos, whom I do not know, again and have no particular interest in the case.

84.13.159.131 (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page, where FormerIP answers your point most eloquently. Rothorpe (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks Rothorpe. I agreed with what the user said about my edit, and I agreed with your undo. I was asked to find some verification that till receipts were never found in court. I posted on the talk page the article I was referring to, it is an article by Harry Rag, here is an excerpt and the article can be found by Google of course

Quintovalle had asked his cashiers if they remembered her or what she had bought that morning, but they did not remember anything. Quintovalle stated that detergent bleach is sold in his store for 1.09 euro per bottle and he carries only one kind (ACE), and they are all 1.09 per bottle. Comment: if the prosecution introduces a till receipt for a 1.09 euro item sold at approximately 8:00am on November 2nd this would be very telling. So far such a receipt has not been introduced. The Police sequestered the till receipts, but have not officially released the findings. A possible problem is that many places don’t even ring up the items on the register to save the taxes

I said in the Wikipedia Talk page that I'm hoping this is enough to justify replacing the paraphrase of the Times article by the exact quote from the Times article, and changing 'the supermarket' to 'a supermarket.'

Admittedly not huge changes, but I am OK with reporting as fact that such-and-such journalist said such-and-such quote.

When Harry Rag writes two years later 'so far such a Till receipt has not been introduced' it makes me think it was inappropriate for Wikipedia to report the existence of the receipt as fact. The existence of the article saying that police state they have it is fact. But Mignini and other prosecutors admit stating untruths on purpose as part of their investigation. Obviously the defendants are lying about lots of things, and the prosecution is saying impossible things which you know about if you read the media about it. It is very hard to find the truth about matters when there is known misinformation, and anyway I hope you'll agree now that a verbatim quote from the Times article is better than paraphrasing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Createangelos (talk • contribs) 12:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Again I would refer you to the talk page. Rothorpe (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rothorpe,

Apparently the consensus was that you were right about the larger edit. The one about changing 'the' to 'a' seems to have met with OK consensus of various editors. I do agree neither should have been made without a discussion. By the way, not relevant to this particular discussion, but generally I didn't see why the Times is on a list somewhere of considered neutral/reliable sources. It is under editorial control of Rupert Murdoch etc etc. Obviously the editorial policy of a newspaper isn't relevant in a situation like this but I was slightly surprised to learn that things can be reported as facts, as truth, just because any journalist working for a major newspaper has been told they are true. It isn't 'original' research for an article to say such-and-such newspaper said this but such-and-such other newspaper said that different thing &c.

Createangelos (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Rothorpe, you beat me to it! I was just typing in a request for you to look at an edit based on Footwarrior's edit. I considered replacing 'police recovered' to 'police reported.' Reason being that Owens Times article really does not contradict Republicca. I thought -- perhaps wrongly -- that we were trying to be too clever by highlighting a contradiction, when really we could sort of resolve it by being reasonable about what Owens really was saying. If someone had come up with sources validating the receipt question I'd have gone for solidifying that position. I'm an unusually logical and neutral person. Anyway, I think there could be sense and wisdom I don't see in keeping it as 'recovered.' The contradiction is a bit of a thorn that maybe shouldn't be pulled out prematurely or something. I think if I'd been a juror I'd have voted guilty, but I wonder to what extent I've been influenced by media reporting. Createangelos (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Captain Beefheart

I have concerns about the way the article is developing. Please join in discussions about the best way forward. Talk:Captain_Beefheart/GA2#Failing. SilkTork *^YES! 08:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have failed the article as it is not neutral. Work needs to be done on making it more rounded, and to take into account the varying views of Beefheart's music. I would be willing to cask my eye over it for neutrality before it is resubmitted for a GA review. SilkTork *^YES! 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tri-ang Railways

Re these edits: my bad, they were among my earliest 50 edits when I hadn't discovered many rules. Putting the ref after the full stop was one of the unseen rules. Unfortunately I'd seen it done the "wrong" way earlier that day on a different article, so just copied that style. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

John O'Groats aka John o' Groats

Hello - in answer to your question regarding the form of the name, I'm still of the same opinion that I expressed back in 2007; i.e. that opinions do vary regarding the 'correct form', so I think the wording of the relevant sentence is still questionable. However, since I made that comment a new sentence has been added, acknowledging – albeit in a way that doesn't read right – that at least one other opinion exists (in the case of the space after the 'o'). And, furthermore, the article has been standardised to use the same form of the name throughout. These are both improvements. If I wanted to be pedantic (and I sometimes do want to be) I could argue that there is still room for acknowledgment that opinions also vary on whether or not the 'o' should be capitalised. Russ London (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonable indeed. I can't let go of the feeling that any spelling other than 'John O'Groats' is needlessly fussy & creates problems where none need exist (I used to teach foreigners English for a living). I would like to see that used throughout the article, while plainly acknowledging that all three spellings ( o'Groats and o' Groats) exist. I wonder how many passionate supporters of lower-case/space there are out there. I can't see much point, actually, in the compromise form: if it's going to be weird, might as well be totally weird. As you said, the rest of Wikipedia uses the O'G form. You may want to edit the article keeping the lower case, which would be perfectly reasonable, but if I were to make the next edit, you can see what choices I'd make. Rothorpe (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

PS 'And, furthermore, the article has been standardised to use the same form of the name throughout.' Not quite: one escaped!

If I had to lean one way or another, it would be towards 'John o'Groats' (which, I notice, is the form the Encyclopaedia Britannica uses). The 'o' is short for 'of' and that's a word that doesn't usually take an initial cap, even in titles, place names, etc. And a space is not usually added after 'o' in terms such as 'o'clock'. However, I don't feel strongly about it and would be happy to see you make whatever edit you wanted. For me, the main thing is to acknowledge that reputable authorities differ on the matter (ideally deleting the claim that any version of the punctuation and capitalisation is the 'correct form' – unless someone can amaze me with a citation for this). And I'm sure I can rely on you to ensure that whatever form you choose is used consistently throughout! Russ London (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me (& I'm lazy). Hope you like the changes. Rothorpe (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you've done a fine job! Russ London (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Rothorpe (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

CTM scope review

Following on from this discussion, I have started to review the scope of WP:CTM's coverage on WP. There are two main possiblilies, so far:

1. We refine our scope according to the "written in the last 50 years or so" statement agreed upon a few months back and included in the Overview - Scope section on the main page.
2. We redefine our scope to include only living people and their works (while retaining the other relevent articles such as contemporary classical music etc).

The former position was agreed by consensus, of course, so redefining our scope to the latter position is a radical shift that needs full discussion and consensus. In essence, the question of redefining arises from the recent mass sourcing drama:

1. It has been suggested that CTM take full responsibility for all composer BLPs.
2. If that goes ahead, WPComposers may wish to unbanner composer BLPs and leave them to CTM (see here for example).
3. Therefore, CTM simply focusses in on those people relevent to our project but not bannered by other projects eg composers with BLPs.
4. Other articles on people are then treated in a similar way ie we would then cover BLPs only and their related articles (plus any other contemporary-music-related articles, as appropriate).

The full review and discussion is found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Scope.

I am also looking more generally at our project's focus, especially as regards the notability criteria etc: User:Jubileeclipman/CTM. Thoughts on that are also most welcome!

Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 13:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Klaus Dinger article editing

May I just enquire as to why you corrected "NEU!" to "Neu!" on this page. All the NEU! albums feature the band name capitalised as thus, and I don't see any problem with spelling it the correct way. If you have some higher reason for this I apologise. --KosmischeSynth (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CTM guidelines regarding infoboxes

In the wake of the proceedings at the Composers project, I am reviewing CTM's guidelines regarding infoboxes: at present we simply follow all the other CM-projects on this issue. I propose that we simply leave it to editors to use common sense and avoid policy-violations. Thoughts welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#CTM.27s_advice_to_editors_regarding_Infoboxes. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 23:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Simon Cowell

Thanks for removing that edit on the Unchained Melody page. I was kind of hasty about making the edit and I saw later after I made the edit that it was already mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisSimpson (talk • contribs) 04:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher

It's good to see you back editing this article. It could do with some input from people who haven't been directly involved in recent controversies! Bluewave (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot to you for greatly improving layout and links to Jean-Luc Ponty long playing Jazz page!Norwikian (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the message in my talk... :-)--Midnight bird (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You're Too Fast!!

Argh!! You beat me to this. Keep up the good work. :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 324° 36' 45" NET 21:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

KT "Both"

Hi Rothorpe - I tried to clarify the "both" that you questioned in the KT article. Intent was that the four principals decided on both the name and the uniform at the same meeting. Hope it's clearer now. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edward Holland, Jr.

Your moving of the article Edward Holland, Jr. to Eddie Holland is a serious mistake, as he no longer goes by Eddie! Please change this back, or I'll have an admin do it. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, then. But I'll have to add a bit to the article or else it might happen again. Rothorpe (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fair. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: NEU!/Neu!

I appreciate that wikipedia has strict rules, but I can not find the band's name written in lower case anywhere, and I own all 5 NEU! albums, a bootleg and the majority of both members' subsequent solo work. It is always written as NEU! and is sometimes underlined. It has only ever been the music industry that wrote the name as Neu!, the actual musicians involved always refer to the band as NEU!. Just to clarify... --KosmischeSynth (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the band have the right to present themselves in their promotional material as they wish - but, as you note, the music industry does not follow suit and Wikipedia has strict rules. Indeed, if it were up to me, there would be no distracting exclamation mark either. It is not as if we shout and make a funny face every time we say the band's name. Rothorpe (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point. While it is a fair point that Wikipedia has strict rules (and so it would be reasonable to keep the name as Neu! for that reason - however, if possible, NEU! would be best), the band's identity is completely their choice. The article is an unbiased report on the band themselves, not the music industry's view of them. The only possible argument against this would be if their official releases displayed their name any differently. However, this isn't the case. The name is NEU!, all correct media regarding the band has displayed it as NEU!, and any music journalist, music label, or website that writes it as Neu! is wrong. Retroactivemusik (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

:(> Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"The", not "the"

Rothorpe, you are a great editor, that's true! Just so you know, Marvelettes are really called The Marvelettes. This is the same for The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Supremes, The Andantes, The Temptations, etc. Now, for the American rock band who released "Hotel California", they're called Eagles. Four Tops is the same way. I worked in the music business for a long time, so you're not getting a bunch of fabricated information by some unwise youngster who has no wisdom and knowledge on such matters of music as these. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Médéric Collignon

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Médéric Collignon. 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) 00:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Médéric Collignon

The article Médéric Collignon 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Shirelles

You must provide a source on the group name of 'the Chantels', please, as you are opposing worldwide proof of their already-given group name 'The Chantels'. Good luck, I'm looking forward on hearing about this! Best, --Discographer (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, their name is 'The Chantels', but... Seems you missed the long discussion we had on this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music)#Linking & capitalising definite article in band names. Happy reading! Rothorpe (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Already done! I sure hate to see you (please don't) lower-casing 'The Beatles' to 'the Beatles', though I won't be surprised! Best, --Discographer (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to do it when you're not looking! Don't worry, you'll get used to it: it's what all the good publishers do, and there's a lot of it in Wikipedia already. Rothorpe (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It don't matter, it'll just be reverted. Best, --Discographer (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Good to see you! I'll probably be editing minimally, I'm working on a screenplay and will be doing other things.Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Conflict news

Hello! The article The Klan (Belgian band) is attacked again. Greetings Raoniz (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguation, disambiguation. Punctuation, rules. Novelist, philosopher. Philosopher, novelist. Iris, murdoch.

I'm seeking some way to open a conversation and explain what I am about as an alterantive to our undoing each other's edits on the Iris Murdoch page. I don't care about any other Wiki pages at the mo, but I care about that one.

Punctuation Rules exist to serve meaning and to disambiguate where necessary. Good Style serves a similar function, but atleast for the language as a whole in a less codifiable way. In a newspaper, a 'Style Sheet', before computers and cascading style sheets, denoted a house approved way of combining Punctuation Rules and Good Style, which approved method had the merit of avoiding the area of ambiguity where one merged into the other, and giving the whole newspaper consistent sub-editing.

Possibly, some such similar function in emerging in WikiPedia.

If so, I make to the sub-editor the following appeal to aid clarity.

I am worried that the meaning of (that is to say what readers will likely take from):

"Occupation: Novelist, philosopher"

is different from:

"Occupation: Philosopher, novelist"

And different again from:

"Occupation: Novelist, Philosopher"

It is in order that I might gently move the Wiki page on Iris Murdoch away from implying that her philosophical contribution is lowercase and her literary contribution UPPERCASE that I have so far attempted to suggest that a sentence fragment is not a sentence, and that sentence case would here convey something untrue or controversial which, at minimum, the wiki page should not commit itself to.

There are various possible solutions to acheive this in line with common usage, and, given your interest in the matter I offer you my full range of possible further solutions for you to choose between them as sub-editor.

1. "Occupation [BOLD, implying a following ':'] novelist, philosopher."

This seems to me entirely in line with the capitalisation rule for sentences and sentence fragments, since said fragment begins with 'Occupation', and not with 'novelist'.

or

2. "Occupation: Author"

or

3. "Occupation: author"

These two solutions seem to me equally acceptable, and a popular solution on wiki for a number of individuals whose contributions have spanned boundaries, and where we have not wanted to commit ourselves to the thesis that one or the other of the areas in which they worked was their major contribution, while the other was some minor addition.

4. Delete "Occupation"

That solution would get around any possible confusions as to which punctuation or style rules might apply to what comes after, whether it is regarded as a sentence fragment beginning with 'Novelist' or with 'Occupation'. We could then introduce a sentence into the main text which reads 'Iris Murdoch was a novelist and philosopher.' Here there is no unclarity about which rules to apply, or where the sentence begins. IE, to solve a dispute about style we could resort to plain grammar.

On the other hand the right hand frame insert box serves a useful function in setting down the headlines of the subject, and it seems a shame to abandon it because we couldn't agree about how to express something as simple as the fact that Iris Murdoch was just as much a philosopher as she was a novelist. There ought to be a way to make that box, and the words in it, work for us, and for Iris Murdoch. Are any of my proposed ways of doing that acceptable?

Occupation Novelist Philosopher

I applaud your further solution to the above sub-editing challenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robjant73 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Berry

As one of the significant contributors to the Chuck Berry article you might be interested that I have nominated it to be listed as a WP:Good article. There is often a delay between nominating and somebody being free to review an article; however, you may wish to keep an eye on it to see how the review progresses and perhaps help out on any issues if you feel you are able. SilkTork *^YES! 10:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding WP:Mustard - I wasn't aware of that particular guideline (and after looking into this matter, I can see that it has recently changed!). I had checked with the articles themselves - The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Beach Boys for correct usage, and they all use "The". I have just now checked standard use of the name, and it is true that in mid sentence "The" becomes "the", so following MUSTARD (as currently written!) makes sense. However, there is no clear quidance on how to proceed as regards wikilinking. We have a choice of the Beatles. The Beatles or the Beatles. I looked at the talkpage of Mustard and saw the recent discussion on the use of "the", including the linked discusion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music). What is not clear from those deliberations is if it is better to use "the Beatles" or "the Beatles". Neither the Chicago Manual of Style nor reliable sources can directly guide us on that, as it is a particular Wiki issue. Mustard currently recommends "the Beatles" by example, and I am comfortable with that - though, as you went through the whole process, I thought it worth checking with you - do you feel that "the Beatles" was the consensus? SilkTork *^YES! 16:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about that, but was relieved to let the discussion drop. Certainly I feel "the Beatles" was the consensus, but I also happen to think that The Beatles, though incorrect, looks better than the Beatles; the reason I didn’t press for "the Beatles" (the [[The Beatles|Beatles]]) was that it asks too much of editors in cases where there is no redirect from the name without the definite article. The solution would be to ask people not to start new band articles beginning with 'The' - a little impractical, perhaps.

By the way, I am still more or less on sabbatical from Beefheart… Rothorpe (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the Beatles, while inelegant because of the highlighting is the least problematic solution if offering a linking method - though if the Beatles is in use in an article I would feel that could be left as it. And perhaps The Beatles as well - as the highlighting does indicate it is an article, and the article title is The Beatles.

I haven't given Beefheart any thought since I closed the GA review. Did I say I would take another look at it at some point? I am trying to cut down the amount of work I do on Wikipedia as I have such a backlog! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all your points. Cheers - Rothorpe (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)...Perhaps the MOS should suggest 'The Beatles' for links, 'the Beatles' otherwise? Rothorpe (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion, and I like it for aesthetic reasons, though it does introduce a certain inconsistency: our guidelines are that the first use of a term in a section is linked, but subsequent uses are not, so in the same paragraph we would have different gramatical presentations of the Beatles. But I think it would be worth putting up for discusion. I think I might prefer the Beatles for gramatical consistency, though I understand the concerns regarding that not all bands have a straight non-definite article redirect - the Who and the Beat for example - however, it would be up to editors to check the link destination, which we have to do anyway, as we cannot always assume that a link goes to where we think it might go! SilkTork *^YES! 21:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

MoMK

As a contributor at the MoMK article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation - I've been unwatching the article, but the idea of a new slimline version sounds good. Rothorpe (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hah, you where so smart to kick it off your watchlist. Good move ;) . But we'll probably move the draft very soon to the mainpage and your editing which was a lot about fixing mistakes and editorial oversight would be much appreciated. And of course, any input about what you think about the rewrite as it stands now would be of help. Thanks for giving it a second thought. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - it's nice to be appreciated. The new version seems agreeably tight. Rothorpe (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You are appreciated as I said. You just kinda work silent behind the lines and therefore (I guess) you don't receive the credit you deserve in words. So here you get some that you can put on your userpage:

I hereby award this barnstar for your relentless silent work behind the lines to improve Wikipedia. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What a nice surprise! Thank you. It sent me on a journey back to 2007, when someone sent me one, and, instead of putting it on my page, I rather gauchely (though sincerely) sent one in return. A mistake I shall rectify now. Thanks again! Rothorpe (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've finished the copyediting. It really is a much better version: congratulations to all. Rothorpe (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Berry GA

A reviewer has started looking at the article. She doesn't like the section headings. They do comply with GA criteria and Wiki guidelines, but are rather neutral to the point of bland, so I understand they are not to everyone's taste. Would you like to have a go at making them more descriptive, without at the same time reducing Berry's complex life into simplistic pigeonholes, or creating a distorted POV. A normal way of naming history sections is by major albums - but Berry didn't produce major albums. Sectioning his life by using one or more of the prison sentences would tend it make it feel as though Berry is notable as much for his prison sentences as he is for his music, and that seems inappropriate. I haven't yet come up with anything satisfactory. SilkTork *^YES! 09:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, as you say, Berry didn't produce major albums, but he certainly did singles, so I've left in the major ones and put in the label changes, which is how I see the shape of his career. What do you think? Rothorpe (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I like what you have done. I think I have done as much as my motivation takes me on the article. The reviewer hasn't passed it as GA yet, so there may be a few other things she/he would like. Would you be able to keep an eye on it and follow up on any points the reviewer raises? If there is something awkward or sticky, give me a ping. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 22:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Good - yes, I'll keep watching it. Regards, Rothorpe (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This user helped promote Chuck Berry to good article status.

Nice one! SilkTork *^YES! 23:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me

This seems sensible enough. It will be interesting to see what happens when this stuff is moved over to MOS:MUSIC (if no one objects to the split: see MUSTARD's talkpage) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like it. And I agree with your conclusions over there. Rothorpe (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

But see...

Saw... Hm --Jubilee♫clipman 01:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I restored your version --Jubilee♫clipman 01:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Alison Moyet edits

Yeah, they look good to me. --JD554 (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You Beat Me Again!

Argh! You beat me to this. Keep up the good work! :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 274° 3' 30" NET 18:16, 15 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) 18:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eden Kane was arguably the last British solo star to succeed before the arrival of the Beatles

Hi Rothorpe, Reference 'he was arguably the last British solo star to succeed before the arrival of the Beatles'. What did he succeed in doing? Boatman (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

a minor edit

Ho, Rheault! Could you check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Analog_Science_Fiction_and_Fact&action=edit&section=15 and add yours truly to the list? Ta, myte! Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. De nada! Rothorpe (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ta again! Hayford Peirce (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Aoxomoxoa

Hi, I won't be watching this page since this is not my scene. If problems reoccur please ping me. Meanwhile, I suggest you might like to add your views on the talk page to bolster consensus. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added my agreement. Many thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Lady Susan Film, book and television adaptations

Why do you keep removing my entry please? I would have thought that rewriting a book written in the form of letters into the same story in narrative form WAS an adaptation. If not, other suggested title please. Also, I do not see how you can justify retaining the adaptation for BBC4 when this is merely a project and has been inserted by the agent - blatant publicity. The book exists in fact. You can find it on www.lulu.com/content/9030033 along with another 6 Jane Austen continuations and completions. Punclruss (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punclruss (talk • contribs) 08:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

<Lady Susan forms the basis for the novel Miss Jane Austen's Lady Susan - Revived by Helen Baker, published in 2010.>

Why is this novel relevant? It looks like spam to me. Rothorpe (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all look at the Wikepedia entry for the derogatory term of 'spam', my entry does not meet these requirements.

Why is the novel relevant? For the first time in 200 years an English lady who understands the British honour system has converted a series of difficult to comprehend letters into an understandable novel. Punclruss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC).

First of

I don't know what you are talking about, but I do notice that there was an attempt to create an article about one Helen Baker in Dec 2008, and that it was deleted. WP:BOOKSPAM:

Sometimes Wikipedia sees bookspam, which is the insertion of text mentioning books to call attention to the books, rather than to contribute to the article. This often takes the form of inserting book listings into reference sections although the book is not used as the source of any information in the article. Bookspam is also seen as the addition of books to "external links", "further reading" or similar sections, although the books added do not add any useful and relevant information. Rothorpe (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I am very sorry, but if you do not know what I am talking about are you an acceptable referee? Please pass my entry to another referee. To elaborate, this novel is unique in that it only uses the vocabulary (even the spelling) of the period and has been scrupulously researched. There is another novel in existence but one has only to read the title to know that it is an attempt to band-wagon. It is called Lady Vernon and her Daughter. A detailed reading of the text shows that no one ever called the heroine anything but Lady Susan. This means she was the daughter of at least an Earl and not merely the widow of a knight. The difference between an Earl and a knight is like that between a Senator and a President. But it is hard for an American to grasp these subtleties. So perhaps you, or your successor, would consider the following entry instead?

<Lady Susan forms the basis for the scholarly novel Miss Jane Austen's Lady Susan - Revived by Helen Baker, published in 2010.>

If my entry is unacceptable so is the advert for the prospective BBC TV programme, not to mention those for stage shows which might have taken place years ago! Punclruss (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Punclruss (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Solo Saxophone Recordings and Performance

The article Solo Saxophone Recordings and Performance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unlikely entry, in terms of combination of words and capitalization

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Dermatology

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for many new articles and redirects. ---kilbad (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Manfred_Mann

An article that you have been involved in editing, Manfred_Mann , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

I think that particular phrasing ("in addition to Mr. Murat: this was a reference to") gives undo weight to Mr Murat by making it seem that he is the only other, or primary suspect. Instead, as the article states, he was one of many. Is there a different way we could phrase this to avoid BLP problems? Prodego ^talk 03:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit arbitrary, so I've removed it. Rothorpe (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Simón Bolívar edits

Hello, I noticed that you are also on Simón Bolívar's article. There is a relatively new editor to this article that insists on adding information about Chavez to this article. I believe that he is pro-Chavez based upon some of his other edits to the Chavez article as well and is attempting to include him in the Bolívar article. While he is trying to draw Chavez in because of the country and potential political connections, comparing Bolívar to Chavez is quite a stretch because one is recognized hero/librator while the other is a dictator. There is also an anon IP who also reverted which may be him as well. Could you look at the recent edits and see if you would include them? Thanks, ----moreno oso (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep my eye on the article. But it looks to me as if you're the one with the agenda. If Chávez is a dictator, he is at least a thrice-elected one. Rothorpe (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my grammar and punctuation, someone has to do it! Best wishes, ValenShephard 16:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Eeh... I just saw the message above mine. Just to clear it up, and as you must have seen, I didn't try to make any connection between Chavez and Bolivar, politically or personally. I think its important to include Chavez in the article (not as an important point, but nonetheless) because Chavez is an important figure in the region (to some) and frequently cites Bolivar. The other IP address is of course not me, that would be a pretty silly way of doing things. Best wishes ValenShephard 16:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Pleasure, no problem. By the way, to sign your name, type four tildes: ~~~~. Cheers, Rothorpe (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Rothorpe! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Lou Johnson (singer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dates on Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani

As I understand it, dates can be in any format so long as they are consistent across individual articles. The three uses of DMY format in the actual prose that I was changing were ones I mistakenly introduced last night, since I assumed that was the format used on this article. I also switched those in the references added by User:Wikireader41, who also seems to have used DMY. I certainly don't want to start an edit war, but think I do have the right to correct my own error in formatting. I can leave the references alone for now, but it is recommended that the references also have a consistent format, though this doesn't need to be the same as the article's format.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do date formats have to be consistent across articles? Yes, I know, because someone made a rule. But because of that rule, you made a typo - which is still there. 'Ignore all rules' is a better rule! Rothorpe (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dates have needed to be consistent on individual articles for some time now, and I'm not sure that's a good reason to prevent me from correcting the edits I made just hours ago. I might direct you to WP:COMMON, part of an essay on ignoring all rules. You also refer to a typo, and that's something I would like to correct, so perhaps you could point it out. Thanks!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 15:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no, I thought you'd changed 24 to 4, but I was mistaken, sorry. Bye! 16:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Stellae denominatio of Gamma Serpens

Generally, γ Ser is identified with Ptolemy's 3rd of Serpens (Pt.3 Ser) in his star catalogue in Almagest, by Peters and Knobel. Pt.3 Ser located at 'ο κρόταφος, "the temple" in Syntaxis, the Greek edition of Almagest. It describes Quæ in tempore, "That is in the temple" by Peters and Knobel's edition of Ptolemy's star catalogue. ([Stella] in Constellatione Serpentis [quæ]) in Temporibus, "([The star] in the constellation of Serpens,) [that is] in the Temple", by Flamsteed's edition of Ptolemy's star catalogue. And it is translated English into "The star in the temple", by Taliaferro.

Pt.3 Ser ＝ γ Ser followed by:

• Tycho - Tycho's 3rd of Serpens: Quæ in Temporibus,
• Hevelius - 13 H. Ser: In Temporibus,
• Flamsteed - Fl. 41 Ser: In Temporibus □ ⁱ sequens,

So it has "traditionally adopted in temporibus, . . ."

References

--Bay Flam (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but "traditionally adopted in temporibus" still makes no sense, and would need to be rephrased even with a footnote. Unless you can think of a way to put this in the article that would illuminate it... Rothorpe (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by praise

Thank you for protecting "doubtless". I enjoyed your home page and agree with you that we should strive to achieve apartheid for trivia. Opus33 (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Milk

		Mmm - Milk!
		A tall, cool glass of milk just for you! Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Enjoy! Spread the goodness of milk by adding {{subst:Give milk}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

− Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ping: Ukdah

Here: User_talk:Rursus#Tau_Hydrae.2C_aka_Ukdah. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually assumed it was a mistake.....

I assumed you did not mean to delete it and didnt wanna sound accusatory. Is there a reason you removed it? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edits

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. — O'Dea 06:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I often do a string of m copyedits (as in the case of Dilma Rousseff) that can be inspected by clicking on the diffs at the ends of the whole bunch and looking through. A non-minor edit always gets an edit summary from me, but at 60, I need to conserve what little energy I can still muster! Rothorpe (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Music MoS

A request has been made for clarification of a section in the Music MoS. As you were involved in an earlier discussion on the subject, your input to the discussion would be appreciated. The general rule of avoiding "The" in running text is given; clearer examples of the exceptions are requested. PL290 (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Large numbers and units

hiya Rothope, I just wanted to pop over and talk to you for a second about large numbers and units. I understand exactly what you were trying to do here, but the "300 billion kg" construct is... well, it's nonsense, really. I'm trying to be nice and all, you know, but a different way to express myself here is failing me at the moment (which could be due to the fact that I'm stealing 15 minutes of time in order to write this... damn Wikipedia for being so addictive! ). You are right that the 11 zero's are a problem, which is something that I'm investigating a fix for, but the "300 billion kg" thing is much worse. Really, the best solution would be to use either 300 Gigagrams (Gg), or .3 Terragrams (Tg), but units above kilo- are relatively rare, so I was looking for a more elegant solution... Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Using the Tonne as the unit of measure is an obvious solution! I'd forgotten all about the straight conversion between the metric ton and the kilogram.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you say. I was just reverting what I saw as vandalism, I think. And I think you were trying to type a smiley, but produced a rather enormous typo, which I think I shall correct... Rothorpe (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC) - Though I rather like the idea of a Rothorpe (disambiguation) page! Rothorpe (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, finally. I thought that I corrected my mistake a few days ago, but apparently it never posted (crappy connection). incidentally, you might want to think about archiving some of this discussion, as this is a really long page right now.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone to suggest that. Your wish is my command! Rothorpe (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive help, please

Anyone is welcome to archive this page, as my attempt seems to have failed, merely renaming it. Rothorpe (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Date formats

Hi, Rothorpe. I saw this sentence on your userpage:

• Similarly, there is no point in standardising the date format throughout an article: it is not a matter of spelling.

I'm surprised one would advocate such inconsistency. Do you mean you have no problem with:

• On 13 August 1839 his wife died. On December 9, 1841, he remarried - or things of that ilk?

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. But with a few paragraphs inbetween it wouldn't bother me. Unfortunately, however... Rothorpe (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there you go. It would still bother me, just as mixing -ize and -ise verbs in the same article would; or colour with honor or vice-versa would; or oeuvre with maneuver would. Horses for courses, I guess. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. As I say, "it is not a matter of spelling". All the other examples you mention would annoy me too, but date formats seem more like synonyms, I suppose. So it goes. Cheers. Rothorpe (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not spelling per se. But you seem to say that if spelling is the only important thing. There's grammar, style, variety of English, register, punctuation, and other considerations. Consistency is the key to all of them, and it should apply across the board, even to date formats. While every person on planet Earth is welcome to edit a particular article, the goal of a good article is to appear to have been written by one person. That's my philosophy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree with that. But I grew up using both date styles indiscriminately, so it was very odd for me to arrive here & find people here arguing about them. Especially since I can't remember the subject ever coming up while I was teaching the language. 'So one is American and the other British? You kidding??' Rothorpe (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For me, it's not a question of one being British and other American, or any other quasi-xenophobic paradigms. It's not about one being right and the other wrong. It's the fact that they look different, and the difference is jarring for those who notice such things. Sure, a lot of people don't notice them, and couldn't care less. But we have to write for exacting readers if we want to produce a quality, professional product, and this imposes a certain rigour when it comes to details of this nature. Although Wikipedia is the 5th most visited website on the net, there are still huge numbers of people who pooh-pooh it every chance they get, on the grounds that "it's produced by a bunch of amateurs, nerds and losers". Show them a good quality article, and they will bypass the content and immediately home in on issues like inconsistent date formats, missing commas etc, with "There, what did I tell you. Nobody could ever take Wikipedia seriously when they produce rubbish like that". My aim is to win such doubters over, to what is, in my opinion, one of the finest achievements humanity has ever come up with and one that I'm proud to be associated with. So, that's where I'm coming from in this. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"On 24 February 1783 he was observed leaving London. By December 21 the following year, he was dead, and that is all we know." Looks and sounds OK to me. As for pedantic naysayers, they cannot be won over: it is part of the definition. Rothorpe (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to argue for your position as much as you like and quote as many examples as you like in support of that position. But anyone who happens to disagree with you is not a "pedantic naysayer". If the level of debate is "The rules are defined by what I, personally, think, and anyone who thinks differently can more or less go to hell", then I won't be participating on that basis. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pedantic naysayers being the people who insist, on any feeble excuse, that Wikipedia must be rubbish because it is produced by volunteers. Rothorpe (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hevron1998

I do not think that edits of User:Hevron 1998 are vandalism. Many are of them are, in fact, quite reasonable. Ruslik_Zero 16:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)