User talk:Atropos/Archive 2007

Succession boxes
No problem - I see you replaced it properly, so all to the good. Just two points - there's no need to show a King-regnant as 'with Queen such and such' (but you do show a King-consort as 'with Queen so and so' if he held some sort of regal power); and you should show the full name of the preceeding and succeeding consorts in the succession box (either an acceptable form of their article title, or their dynastic name - so for the Queen of Henry II of Navarre, you could list her in the preceeding and succeeding boxes as either 'Margaret of Angouleme', or some variant (since she came from the Valois-Angouleme family), or as 'Margaret of Navarre' (since that is the article title, and the name she is most commonly known by). Nice work, though - especially on the Henry IV succession box. Michael Sanders 04:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For consorts, the official title is (and is recorded in the box as) Queen-consort - and obviously, the King regnant wouldn't be there. 'With' is only needed if the person officially held power beyond the role of consort. As for surnames, we're expected to show the 'surname' of the consort, since it is used as part of the name of the man or woman. However, it is up to you whether you show the name according to article title (thus, 'Margaret of Navarre') or according to family, house, etc (thus Margaret of Angouleme - which is her 'official' title, along with 'of Valois', 'of France', but which is not the most commonly used name for her). If an article title is more complicated (say it was 'Catherine de Medici, Queen of France', because there was another, more well-known Catherine de Medici), you don't need to show the 'Queen of France' bit. Michael Sanders 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One other thing: the Bourbons and Valois are cadet branches of the Capetian dynasty, rather than of the House of Capet. Michael Sanders 00:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

fictional character succ boxes
Hey, I liked your comments on this discussion... I'm working up a compromise... I think people will agree upon it. Give me a day or two and check again so that you can vote on my proposal.--Dr who1975 18:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ibis producciones
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ibis producciones, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ibis producciones fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: broken redirect To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ibis producciones, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Ibis producciones itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Gasparo Berti Experiment.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gasparo Berti Experiment.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes and deletions to "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" Article
This article needs citations as it has been cleaned up drasticaly since the "Clean Up" tag was added. I don't wish to creat a conflict so I felt communicating this way would be best. If you look at the history you will see that I have done a great deal of that clean up. That does not mean there cannot be more, however if it is something that is disputed by someone I always believe that it is more important for the one deleting to justify it. I say this as I see quotes from Wiki-standards but can not find anything pertaining to deleting Tag lines. More important that that I believe it is important that you explain in detail and add any citations directly and not just a link. You should do the work if you are making the deletion. Anyway I say this with all due respect to you as a Wiki contributor. --Amadscientist 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Great job on Talk:Main Page
Very interesting blurb on which language Wikipedias should be on the Main Page. I laughed my ass off. 89.120.193.125 09:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Pan's Labyrinth
Your answer lies here. The American Cinematographer is a good reference to use for the article; I suggest incorporating anything useful from the four pages of content available there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I happen to have a pile of Pan's Labyrinth headlines in my Gmail inbox (using Google Alerts) and if you're interested, I can dump any relevant headlines on the talk page. I did this for Sunshine -- see Talk:Sunshine (2007 film).  Just let me know, and I'll be happy to go through my archives to see what's of use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll dump the headlines on the film article's talk page in the next few days. Gonna be watching Dark City tonight -- might be shaping up that particular article to FA standards in the next month or so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good, protege! :) I hate cleaning up after someone's self-promotion, but the job's got to be done. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the reminder. I'll see if I can do it when I get home. Was out of town for the weekend. It'll be great to see a Production section for the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay, but I've finally gone through my archived headlines and dug out all articles that seemed to have dialogue from the cast and crew. I skipped reviews since there should be more than enough at Rotten Tomatoes and other sources. Seems like a good collection of links to use. Hope you can really expand the article now! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Engardus GA review
Thanks for taking the time to review it. I went ahead and added all the citations. The first cite you asked for "His name...etc...all suggest a Northern origin" is part of a two sentence unit which continues "But ... his works...[have] strong Italian connections" (fn). I can footnote each sentence individually with the identical note, but my instinct is to think that that would be a little pedantic. Thanks again for the review. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

ESA
Thanks, and thanks again. -- Rmrfstar 19:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lloyd Owen
Thanks for taking the time to review the article. However, I find the three-into-one merged tables rather confusing, and think the information would be more clearly presented in three separate tables. In particular, the information in the first column ("film", "television" and "theatre") doesn't correspond properly with information in the second column (dates) – some entries currently fall between two categories, which is clearly wrong. I also think that it's not necessary to have a footnote in the introductory paragraphs, as the relevant statements are footnoted in the main text. I suggest that the changes be reverted. Is that all right with you? Cheers, Jacklee 08:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I had another look at the merged table, and understand better how it works. Maybe it would be better to swap the "Year(s) of appearance" and "Medium" columns around: will work on that when I have time. I still think it's a bit confusing, though. It may also be slightly more difficult for people who are not familiar with Wikitext to update. Regarding the citation, my point is not that the fact should not be supported with a citation, but that it's not necessary to have a citation in the introductory paragraph as the fact in question is already referenced in the main body of the article (the footnote comes later on in the paragraph after "... Peter Gill in 2002" as the material before the footnote is all from the same source). Cheers, Jacklee 03:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC) [I've copied this discussion to "Talk:Lloyd Owen"; you may want to continue it there.]

Portal:Muppets
Hey, you started this back in 2005 and don't seem to have done anything with it since; would it be fair of me to assume that you wouldn't mind me finishing and maintaining it now? Atropos 05:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do. Any page I create/edit is yours to edit too. When I first started reading it, I thought you were going to suggest a delete of it, quite glad you're wanting to help out. --  Zanimum 15:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

France portal peer review
Atropos- as we discussed months ago, I put the Portal:France up for peer review on the road to featured status. Any advice/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks- NYArtsnWords 18:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign
I've re-added a great deal of informatin that was taken out (I noticed you reverted this at one point) and re-organized it in a better fashion. I used a format taken in Hillary Clinton's article, with Opponents and Detractors sections, but some things just don't fit in those sections. Do you think it's appropriate to have a Controversies section in the article or not? Some things just don't fit into a Detractors section. Thanks.--Gloriamarie 00:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page tabs
Thanks for your comments on the proposal. You said "New comment is far clearer and more aesthetic", but you didn't vote for that option. Why not? What do you think of "New topic"? — Omegatron 12:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to. That's all. Atropos 14:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you like the other options? — Omegatron 14:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, maybe I'll vote later today. You've kind of caught me at a bad time; I'm not very lucid but I am very irritable. I did not plan to wake up at 6:30 in the morning to start this garage sale today. >:( ♥Atropos 14:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just asking. :-)  Usually people have reasons for not liking things.  No rush.


 * Sorry about your day. Anything good for sale? — Omegatron 14:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

before you resubmit to GA
There are a lot of other headlines on that talk page that you could have used but didn't (e.g. the companies that were in charge of the effects, how del Toro saw the characters, etc.) Pandacomics 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd edit
I'm curious, what was meant by this edit? --Eyrian 21:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Puppet
I think there is a need to resolve what appears to be a problem. I think you have a valid point. What is needed is a way to differentiate the main headings from the subheadings. By placing them all in the same type of text confusion occurs. That is the only reasons capitals have been used. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative. I am not an unreasonable person. Am open to your suggestions to resolve this. The vandalism referred to was created by others with their self advertising and placing photos out of context with text. Finneganw 01:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way of making the subheadings under Asia, Europe etc. not in bold? I think that might be the solution. Thanks for your assistance. Finneganw 02:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Think I have come up with a solution. I have added colour to the headings that denote subheadings such as Asia, Europe etc and removed full use of capitals for these important subheadings to highlight them from subheadings within them. Hopefully this deals with this. Finneganw 02:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can live with this. I hope you can live with the rest as I am just interested in ensuring the content is worthwhile.Finneganw 02:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Read my comment
If you read my comment on the RHPS talk page, you'll see that I favor having it in both places.Kww 03:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

John Mayer FA promotion
I want to thank you for your assistance in bringing the John Mayer article to FA. It means the culmination of almost two years of work for me, and wouldn't have been possible without help from the WP community. Thanks again.--Esprit15d 12:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Olive branch/Truce
Although I know that you are not happy with me at this time, I can only say that I stick to my guns. That is not always a good attribute to have. I apologise for continuing this fight and not just letting it go as I had mentioned. As if I have to have the final word, I continued to speak back on issues involving you and The Rocky Horror Picture Show article. I have no reason to expect after all this time that you would accept this apology, but escalating it further is not a benefit for either of us or the article.

I began my experience with Rocky Horror in 1978 with the city of Merced at the UA Cinema with the group "The Wild and Untamed Things". I continued with the following in Fresno at the UA Cinemas 4 on Blackstone Ave with the group "Creatures of the Night". It was with this group in 1981 at the Third Annual Transylvanian Convention where I met Sal Piro when he announced to us that Fresno and our theatre had been picked to premier the film "Shock Treatment". It was here that I met and had the experience of officially welcoming Richard O'Brien. It was a great experience. (documented in the "Fresno Bee", August 1981, "The Official Rocky Horror Picture show web site" - Rocky Horror Time line, and the site "80s Movies Rewind" SHOCK TREATMENT (1981) - Trivia as well as other places). I have strived to keep the article factual and informational as I had previously discovered it unreferenced and plagued by spam links, with no "Production section" and dubious mentions in unrelated sections. I adopted the page and have subsequently re-written it almost entirely. I do have the best interest for the article. I am sorry that I have been a source of frustration to you and will no longer take part in reverting or editing out your contributions regardless of how I may feel as it only continues a fight. Thank you.--Amadscientist 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My last comment left on The Rocky Horror Picture Show Talk Page was not directed at you or Kww. Additionally my removal of a libelous personal attack that references off site and personal information was within Wikipedia guidelines. I am removing them again but should you feel for some reason that you need to re-add them I will simply ask for technical help to have them permanently deleted.--Amadscientist 00:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe a great deal of what has caused our problems is misconception. While I can strive to better understand you I cannot make you attempt to better understand me. I apologise if I have taken up your time sir.--Amadscientist 01:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to William Hamilton (Jacobite poet)
Hi! I noticed that you added a number of links to "Lyons" from the above page. There are lots of cities, places and people called "Lyons". To which did you mean to refer? This page is a disambiguation page, and should not normally be linked to. Please change your edit to link straight to the appropriate page. For more information, please refer to WP:DPL. Thanks. Dontdoit 00:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the support. I have no great hopes that good sense will prevail against the copyleft crusaders, but it's good to know that I'm not alone. I'm not really thinking of giving up Wikipedia — I just spent a huge amount of time getting an article ready for FAC — but sometimes the bureaucratic mindset is extraordinarily frustrating. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to The Rocky Horror Picture Show article
I have implemented many changes to the article in the last few days and wanted to invite you to look and see if there were any concerns you had, or if there were perhaps still parts you objected to. Your input is greatly appreciated if you are still interested.--Amadscientist 04:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Breather?
U say I need a breather - what do u recommend? Seriously, tell me. I am not gonna stay away from Wikipedia or discussions (unless forced to ofcourse, but I don't feel Ihave done anything). I won't change the way I think because I think hard and passionately, and if someone or something seems to offend, I let them know. Its not nice to say to someone that they will get a better insight by looking at the Bollocks page. Tourskin 03:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Essay move
As discussed on the village pump last week, I'm starting to move essays to people's userspace if they haven't been edited by others (not counting typo fixes etc). Since there's a lot of pages in CAT:E, I'd appreciate some help. Other people suggested deleting some of the worse essays, or adding merge tags as appropriate; I'll leave that up to people's discretion.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ada
Sorry for my crude edit to Ada Lovelace. I should have discussed it first. My motivation for the "Cleanup" comment was that I was removing redundant wikilinks in the text as well as the links in the See also that had already been mentioned in the text. The Uterine cancer category is not a good fit seeing that she died from her treatment and not the disease, but that is arguably the case with most of the ladies already in that category. --  rxnd  ( t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 05:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Memento
I have definitely sure of the location of the motel. I recognise the car lot (now demolished) in the background of a shot. Plus the original motel cited doesn't seem to have ever existed. Although my own experience indeed is hardly a source. Skooma2112 02:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Proof deleted
Hi, I just saw that Template:Proof was deleted following your suggestion. I guess it's my fault for not watching the template page, but that template did incorporate a useful feature -- inclusion into Category:Article proofs which listed all such pages. Is there any way to find out which articles have previously transcluded Template:Proof, now that everyone has gone around deleting all the references to it?

BTW, there is a long (and occasionally active) discussion about proofs and how they should be presented in WP. It's too bad you didn't post a comment about the deletion in that page, since you certainly would have gotten many more opinions on the TfD. --Zvika 08:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show
In view of this AfD and this DRV, please consider adding references to the songs listed at the AfD. -- Jreferee    t / c  19:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal
You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed you voted on the List of the Day proposal. A new one has been made and your comments are welcome. The Placebo Effect 02:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ulysses
I respect the book and its reputation; but the article about independent bookstores was not the place to put that kind of information. -- Orange Mike 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Information about the book is in the book's article. I really don't think it belongs in the article, but I'll leave it to some other editor to clean up, rather than get into a revert war. -- Orange Mike 04:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Proof

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Proof is a huge self-reference and somewhat non-neutral when it says that the "proofs are considered interesting in themselves," almost as if it is justifying the articles existence (there have been objections to the notability of proofs in the past). Otheruses can handle clarification between the notable topic and the proof of the notable topic (ie, This article is about the proof of foo. For information about foo itself, see foo. Atropos 03:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, use seemain instead. Stating "this article is interesting" at the top of an article isn't a very good approach.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Radiant!; unnecessarily detailed/compliacted, we don't need an ugly box at the top of an article when we can just use seemain. It should be self-evident from the article that it is about mathematical proof.  Melsaran  (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and use seemain &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 12:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, but not necessarily use seemain. I was horrified to see that it was proposed for deletion, but after really thinking about it it does seem useless, if not bad. However, please do not discourage the ArticleName/Proof idea. Main articles are great, but sometimes you need a proof that's bound to an article, to support it. &mdash; Ben pcc 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That actually contradicts naming conventions, and they should be moved to Proof of Article Name, like how Transportation in Azerbaijan is not at Azerbaijan/Transportation. They also aren't actual subpages, because this has been disabled in the article space. Atropos 02:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
 * Yeah, well, I'm gonna violate the request above, because the deletion of this template clearly violated basic WP proceedures. Did any of you guys actually read what the template said, or participate in the discussions that lead to the creation of the template? No, of course you didn't! Instead you choose to do the equivalent of a speedy-in-bad-faith on the thing! No wonder large parts of wikipedia are up in arms over the nonsense and shenanigans that goes on around here.  This template was the result of a year-long discussion and debate by dozens, if not hundreds, of editors, and you four just sort of decided to ride rough-shod over the whole process, and, I assume out of pure malice and hatred, whacked the thing. I am thoroughly disgusted by this sort of juvenile behaviour. In no way are you helping wikipedia. If you think you are, then you need to think again. linas (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Template: Proof
I was also disappointed by your failure to notify WikiProject:Mathematics of your nomination of this template for deletion. The debate failed to notice that the template in question placed articles into a category, a role which seemain does not perform. If the template was badly worded, the solution is to rewrite it not delete it. Your actions here are similar to deleting an article because it contains a copyright violation (instead of removing the copyright violation from the article). Geometry guy 10:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the reply. I appreciated it. Geometry guy 19:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Orange move survey
I've noticed your interest in the article name of the color/colour Orange. Currently there is a move pole taking place at the Orange (colour) talk page. Your vote would be much appreciated. Thanks, Nicholas SL Smith chatter 03:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections
You voted oppose for everyone except for one person. Are you not aware that you can vote support for more than one person, and that you do not need to vote oppose? What was the point of that? -- David  Shankbone  06:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not rude at all when a person sees that you have voted against every person. It's called Wiki software, and makes such things apparent.  I don't know you and have never seen you before, so it goes to show you how obvious your voting was that it stood out.  Maybe you should read WP:DICK.  -- David  Shankbone  19:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement regarding Durova/!! matter
FYI, I am alerting user's who have voted to oppose based on my comments about the Durova matter that I have written a longer statement regarding my views on the matter which I hope clarifies a few points of apparent misunderstanding. See User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Pankorea.jpg
You don't have to go to DRV, I hate that place. The image was deleted because it didn't meet WP:NFCC, point 10c. If you're willing to fix it, I'll undelete the image right now. east. 718 at 18:38, December 16, 2007
 * I've restored the image. east. 718 at 19:39, December 16, 2007