User talk:Bluewave/Archive 3

British music, folk baroque and hi
Thought I would just say hi and thanks for your contributions to folk baroque, and in general. Not used to finding people with a mix of musical tastes as eclectic as mine. On the UK classical music article: I plan to split it this weekend (unless there are major objections) and do a clean-up of both bits - be great if you have time to take a look at it after that. Keep up the good work. (So glad I don't have to edit the national anthem - I feel the same way about it).--Sabrebd (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally got the Early music of the British Isles done, had to split it at 1707. Take a look and see what you think.--Sabrebd (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to get back to the Classical music article when I have recovered, maybe we can find some more experts to help.--Sabrebd (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hamsters
Thanks for your support as well as you input into the discussion on the talk page. Even more thanks for the additional citations. I'm finding it difficult to find neutral 3rd party sources online. As you probably know the audience's demographic is more in line with paper publications rather than online information. As I don't read music mags (I'm of the belief that music is for listening to, not reading about :) ) I'm not always in a position to know where they are. Anyway, I just thought I'd like to say thanks for your work on this. -- Web H amster  13:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Olim Memnisse Juvabit
Why yes, they do bring back some memories. Maidstonenses Gaudeamus. Feel free to "email this user". DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

His Dark Material task force
I am thinking of starting off a His Dark Materials task force. Please place your comments here. Pmlinediter  Talk 09:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A task force has been created here, please sign up. Pmlinediter   Talk 10:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Clayrealbum.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Clayrealbum.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Clayrealbum.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:Clayrealbum.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Hat.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:Hat.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:100tonchicken.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:100tonchicken.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Corries.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:Corries.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Recorder
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a lot of concerns with the referencing and the licensing of images which you can see at Talk:Recorder/GA1. Consequently I have de-listed the artcile. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Sceptical circles.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:Sceptical circles.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Anthems.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:Anthems.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Pais (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Classical composers timeline
Hi. I see you have been working on this. I'm wondering whether it might be possible to fix this so the colour tabs are long enough for the names, and also so the names don't run into each other. At the moment it's difficult to read. Thanks and regards. -- Klein zach  03:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. It really is tricky, isn't it! Leaving aside the content problem (who is in and who is out), the graphic design is a big problem. Maybe we need to fid someone to re-do the whole thing in a completely different way? -- Klein zach  10:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's always difficult to get people to agree to a set of names. You might try to get agreement on a number. Perhaps we should take this over to Talk:Classical music? -- Klein zach  10:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Bluewave! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Tokio Uchida -
 * 2) Mark Norris (technology writer) -

GAR notification
Letting you know I've opened a good article reassessment for Bert Jansch, to which you are the main contributor. You can read my concerns at Talk:Bert Jansch/GA1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

edit conflicts
I've been watching the Meredith Kercher page and have refrained from commenting until now. It is heavy slogging for you over there. Just had to chime in, I thought you were about to go under a big wave. No pun intended. Malke 2010  23:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Go see Gwen Gale's talk page. She's an admin and I've mentioned all this to her.  I've put up a warning on the talk page of the editor in question.  Don't give up on the page.  You have the right attitude regarding the neutral edits, making the project better, etc.  The editor is a single purpose editor (SPA) and seems to be connected to the boyfriend.  Has this user had other accounts that he/she has edited under that you know of? Malke  2010  09:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. It would be easy enough to check with the IP being used.  I don't know if there's any rule about being blocked and then opening up another account.  But I imagine if you came back and did the same behaviors, you'd end up with the same consequences agin and again.  They probably do have a way of checking these things.  Well, I'll keep an eye out.  Maybe some other editors will come along to help out, especially if they see they aren't alone there. Malke  2010  10:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your edits. Especially the last bits.  The POV pushing is almost like this editor is re-trying the case on appeal. Malke  2010  10:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's looking better already. Malke 2010  11:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher


I feel you deserve this for keeping up the good work, despite vandalism. Salvio giuliano (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Conspiring to Obstruct another Editor
Bluewave, it is very upsetting to see these tactice you are using on these editor Talk pages. Looking at these I see that you are conspiring to have me blocked, banned or otherwise sanctioned to prevent or obstruct me from editing on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Those are nasty tactics. You are spreading rumors and trying to get other editors to do your dirty work. You and Malke seem to have some sort of conspiracy going where I am being accused of being associated with Sollecito or otherwise have some connection with the case, am an unlawful sock puppet, or have otherwise broken some rule. You sink to this level because you do not agree with me on the content of the article. Then you say on the article Talk page that you want the article to be more polite. What you are doing is not at all polite but very rude. Please stop with these conspiracies and getting meatpuppets to do your dirty work. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling me and other editors meat-puppets is an assumption of bad faith and can be seen as a wp:personal attack. That and more can lead to editing restrictions and it is in your own hands to avoid such.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Zlykinskyja, deleting the comments left on your talk page by me and Gwen Gale seem evidence that you are not interested in learning from your mistakes or seeking the help of other editors here. Further, accusing editors of being meatpuppets, as Magnificent Clean Keeper has pointed out, is in itself a violation.  WP:NPA and WP:AGF.  Bluewave is working diligently to contribute to the project here.  He is working within the guidelines of WP:NPOV and removing WP:SYN.


 * Your edits, on the other hand, have been tendentious and have raised the concern of editors here. If you want to edit here, for starters, you should either delete or strike through your negative comments, and then begin working with the editors on the Meredith Kercher article.  Begin by using the talk page.  And please remember it's an encyclopedia, not a WP:Forum.  Editing on Wikipedia is stressful and it's messy, but eventually things work out. Malke  2010  20:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Malke: You have made numerous claims about me to an administrator and on my talk page. The gist of your discussion seems to be to try to get me banned or blocked or in trouble somehow. You have accused me of engaging in an edit war, you have told me that I should stop editing on the Kercher article, you have accused me of not using good sources, you have accused me of being somehow connected with the case, of editing POV, and on and on. I do not even know where you came from. You have not been involved with this Kercher article, while I have put many hours into this. You just show up and start making accusations against me. This all starts after you and Bluewave seem to agree to help each other with this article or against me on his or your talk pages. What is going on is harassment and it is very upsetting. Please leave me alone.Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

defense/prosecution summaries
To answer your question, Yes, your summaries are excellent. They do cover enough, afterall they're summaries. Good job. Malke 2010  09:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

redirects
Hi, I was wondering, how you found them and if there is a way to check for them? They have been deleted thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What I did at the redirect was remove the link and them add a speedy delete template for no content because I had basically removed the link, I was going to add a speedy template for attack article but that gets the admins excited and when they come rushing it is a bit boring so I save that for really bad cases, but then the admin came along and deleted the page as an attack page anyway. It needs an admin to delete it but we can add the template and break the link if we want to immediately stop the malicious redirect, thanks for your letting me know how to find them also, it is a way that tricky vandals work. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks to you too Bluewave, I love learning things like that, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Guede's Appeal
You pretty much got it covered. Rudy can only appeal his conviction before the Cassazione, which should uphold it, barring a last minute surprise... I too think that, given the amount of international media coverage, the various Judges did everything by the book. If Rudy is lucky, he might just be granted another extenuating circumstance, which I highly doubt. Salvio giuliano (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

About your proposed edit

I think its time for you to make your proposed edit as you have clear consensus at the article's talk page. Make it if and when you feel the time is right (right/ripe ;)  ). See talk page. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (courtroom edit)restored per consensus. Malke 2010  12:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think major changes to that section, so soon after consensus, should require discussion on the talk page first. Bluewave (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome! At the moment, I'm just copyediting, but I look forward to being totally confused by the controversies... Rothorpe (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Avocet-jansch.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Avocet-jansch.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BlackSwan.png
 Thanks for uploading File:BlackSwan.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bert jansch.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Bert jansch.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks
Hi Bluewave, Thanks for that, actually I was just feeling I was an idiot for getting carried away with it. I am up for trying to help improve it, but in fact this has been a minor diversion from a real task I am wrestling with, outside this great enterprise, which is giving me brain fever - and there's a deadline for that which I have to meet. If Bollocks survives I will gladly look in and try to assist but I can't promise a lot of help right at present. But I think the plan is good, and will support in principle as and when I can. Cheers! Eebahgum (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, our arguments seem to have succeeded. Bollocks is saved for everyone, and we are among those responsible. I suppose now we must do something about it. That's what comes of talking so much Bullshit. See ya there, quite happy to confab if necessary. All the best, Eebahgum (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Having just glanced again at the beginning (and it's a very long article) it looks to me as if it has suffered from the kind of 'drift' you refer to for a long time. I see from the Talk page you have been its advocate and guardian for many years. High Warden of the Bollocks - pretty good, I'd put it on a customized barnstar for you if I could remember how to do it. The opening paragraph (i.e. the lead-in) needs totally reworking to suit the new improved content, so it should be left till later. I think the whole question of its etymology and early uses needs to be got out of the way before tackling the subject of its modern identity. I don't like this idea that it is Anglo-Saxon. Even the word 'ball' ('beallu', etc) is only an inferred one, based on a Teutonic (technical term for a particular phase of very early German, i.e. Continental pre-Anglo-Saxon) root, which means that it doesn't survive in the Old English literature. The '-ocks' ending is a perfectly common form of diminutive, as in 'hillocks' or 'tussocks' or 'hassocks' or (probably) 'buttocks' (but not rowlocks), and to be frank these look like early Mediaeval (i.e. Middle English) formations to me, not Old English: but I stand to be corrected. The BBC recently broadcast a drama about King Henry II, Richard and John, in which King Henry (d.1189) used the expletive 'God's Bollocks', but this might have been anachronous. Old English should be asserted only as the probable source for the root-word 'ball'. Then there's all this stuff about priests which needs to be referenced and put in order, because the famed Professor James Kingsley of ye Universitie of Nottinghame (stap me vitals) is not adequately referenced by that footnote to Richard Branson, and all the thing about the Straits Fleet is entirely anecdotal. Only facts will do at this stage. Once all this is cleared up, and any intrusive additions have been put in storage ready for re-locating elsewhere in the article, one can make some headway. What say you? Eebahgum (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your last. Do yew set on, bor, an' this'n'll foller up togither arter. Eebahgum (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oo I love it when you speak Anglo-Saxon like that. Bluewave (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you have been busy at the quarry-face. I have just watched an episode of the police drama 'Lewis' (ITV i-player) entitled Old School Ties (first b/c 4 March 2007), in which a woman of Geordie extraction says 'Villains are villains, and no arty-farty bollocks are going to change it.' That I suppose is quotable, and 'Lewis' is fairly inoffensive fare watched by nice blue-rinse persons in Tunbridge Wells (or 'Thunderbridge Wells', as I once saw it printed on the English corner of a map of France), so it suggests the level of acceptability is higher than what is implied by your survey of swearwords. I looked for somewhere in the article to slip this in, but your main figurative meaning in the opening paragraph, as 'rubbish', doesn't seem to have much of a section describing its usage thus. Maybe this example would help? I was also impressed by the fact that the lady character, who is credited with having been competent with words and to have ghost-written her husband's memoirs, uses the word 'bollocks' as a plural noun, 'no ..bollocks are going to change it.' This may well be a deliberate joke on the part of the script-writer - I should probably have said, 'No amount of arty-farty bollocks is going to change it.' Number is always a notoriously difficult area, but I think 'bollocks' meaning rubbish is normally considered to be a collective or quantitative noun, and is used with a singular form of the verb - a 'load of bollocks', 'that's plain bollocks!' (is), etc. I cannot imagine anyone saying 'That are bollocks' (meaning rubbish), nor, if they said 'Those are bollocks', would I think they referred to rubbish but rather to testicles. ('I'm laughing at your bollocks' could of course carry either meaning, precisely because the number is not specified.) To paraphrase Churchill, it is all very singular. Keep up the good work, Eebahgum (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy St. Paddy's Day


Happy St. Paddy's Day, Bluewave. :D  Malke  2010  22:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Short reply
Hey Bluewave, thanks for your nice reply, but it was no big deal! :`) Cheers. Akuram (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Bluewave, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Bluewave/MOMK. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Z.'s tempering with editors posts/comments
You might want to watch out for Z.'s tempering with your posts/comments like this one here that I reversed. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning. Yet another abuse of Wikipedia that I'll have to spend time looking out for :-( Bluewave (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

MoMK rewrite sub
If I implement(ed) American-English please rv./change. Thanks.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I reckon you are pretty good at switching between variants of English...and American English is the least of our problems with the article, but thanks for asking, and I'll look out for any areas where the Queen might be offended by abuses of "her" English :-) Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, It's the least of our problem(s) and yet the easiest one to prevent. So why not fix it right away (as needed) before your Queen might be offended? :)  The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep up the good work over there and I'll try to go over it as I did today and before and at some point will also check the souces to make sure they really fit (although I trust you and am not "concerned" as I am with other editors, who at least in part, applied their own OR interpretation or, (occasionally) the citation even didn't fit at all.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vote of confidence! Actually, I haven't checked all the cites very carefully. One problem is that I've copied some named references across from the original text and it makes it a bit difficult to check. The other problem is that a lot of the cites are to the Michaeli judgement and my grasp of Italian is not really good enough. I was hoping to go over all the references later and try to find the best sources. Another problem I'm conscious of is that I believe The Times is planning to make its archive available on a subscription-only basis at some point and this may screw us up in the future. Bluewave (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not responding to your posts on the talkpage and not working on the draft itself for several days. I really would like to but just can't for very personal reasons. I feel a bit bad about it since you're doing the major (or better said all the work) over there. But you're doing a good job so far and once the citations are mostly implemented, I'm with Averell23 and think we can move it to mainspace to work out the (never-ending) rest.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. I'm just slightly concerned that I may be putting a lot of work into something that isn't what people wants and ends up going nowhere. Bluewave (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

== "(Britons never, never, never shall be screwed)" ==

Umh, so how do you manage Reproduction? XD The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Of couse, I'm just "screwing" with you ;). Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a mystery! Bluewave (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, it's a mystery, or is it?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

New article for Amanda Knox
I haven't seen you post anything about the new article "Amanda Knox" so this is just a friendly notice that the article has been approved for expansion. Many other people have already edited the article, so I thought perhaps you did not know about it. This is just a friendly notice, that the article is open, but please feel free to ignore this message, and I am not suggesting that you need to edit the article. You know, restrictions in notifying other users. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
for this.

There's also which gives — Preceding unsigned comment added by Example (talk • contribs).

pablo hablo. 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought there was very likely some clever template but didn't know where to look for it :-( Cheers! Bluewave (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Welcome Back
Yes, hi again. Not sure how much I will contribute, but I noticed that one of the editors has gotten a topic ban, which may make things less frustrating. So maybe I'll see you there in the near future. --FormerIP (talk) 10:35, 14 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 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) 05:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

MoMK
Where are things right now? I'm still interested in the article, just stayed away because of the recent drama which seems to have been resolved. Anything I can do to help? Malke 2010  17:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Bluewave, yes I'm well aware of your excellent rewrite. I'm very impressed at how well it reads.  I supported the edit when you had it on the talk page.  I did take a look at the admin action and saw SarekOfVulcan had to finalize things there.  Black Kite is on the talk page and I just read over his comments which I agree with completely.  He's right.  The article is reading in a much more neutral and encyclopedic way, and I hope it stays that way.


 * I see there also, that there are comments similar to the previous editor's, which gives me some pause, but since Black Kite is there, I think it will be all right. Not like before.  You really carried the water for Wikipedia on that one.  We'll have to get you some barnstars.  You know I was concerned more about how Rudy Guede was getting portrayed, and I'm glad his sections read the way they do now.  That other stuff, with all the knives, etc., was just so much WP:OR.


 * Your edit is excellent and I don't see any reason it should change substantially. Maybe you could take it to GA?  I'd be happy to help. Malke  2010  17:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Great Work on MoMK
Absolutely. An excellent job. pablo hablo. 09:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Bluewave (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Times Archive
Hi

Do you have a subscription for the Times archive? I'm working on an article which badly needs some refs, and one of the participants was involved with a lawsuit against the Sunday Times in the 1980s. He's written a book, which I've ordered, but even when it arrives obviously it's not going to be an ideal reference for some things. pablo hablo. 08:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't have a subscription to the current archive. I've got access to the historical archive (1785-1985), though. When exactly in the 1980s are you looking for? Bluewave (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC


 * Lawsuit was settled out of court in 1987, dammit. (I have the 1785 - 1985 version too)  pablo hablo. 14:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I can access the Guardian archive up to about 2003 using the account for my local library. I don't have my library card with me at the moment, but I'll have a look at the Guardian's coverage of the lawsuit when I can log on. That might be some help, assuming that it was reported there. Bluewave (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks - the rest of what's now in the article I have references for, just need to add them.  pablo hablo. 19:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a brief account in the Guardian. I've added the reference to the article. If you want to see the full text, send me a private email and I'll send you the PDF file of the Guardian article. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, I will - won't be able to look at it till tonight, though. pablo hablo. 11:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Question
I've been meaning to ask you about the MoMK rewrite. When you worked on it, did you have a subpage or sandbox, or did you just rewrite it on your computer and then paste it someplace for everybody to see before you posted it as the new page? I remember something about a subpage, but I thought that was put in place once you'd rewritten the article, so we could all see it first. Malke 2010  21:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was written on a subpage and then history-merged with the MoMK article. The talkpage history of that sub-page is still visible here for copyright reasons.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see. Thanks. :D Malke  2010  01:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In cases where I was adding large chunks of text into the draft, I worked on these on my own sub-page first and then copied them over into TMC-k's sub-page for others to contribute and comment. Bluewave (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mark Norris (technology writer)‎


The article Mark Norris (technology writer)‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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  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  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. If you are able to add any references to the article please do. -- J04n(talk page) 00:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mark Norris (technology writer)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Mark Norris (technology writer), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sorry that I keep nominating this article but we have to source or delete the WP:BLP's. I really tried to add a reference to the article but I can't find anything about him other that what he has written. J04n(talk page) 01:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that you were able to source the article. J04n(talk page) 13:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

When will we talk, I would like to resolve this and move on to other issues ?
From Murder of Meredith Kercher@ Bluewave and all parties concerned. I agree. If all are in agreement I suggest we proceed. The statement would read, On 1 November 2007, Kercher's two Italian flatmates were away for the night.[23] At 8:40 pm, a witness knocked on the door of Sollecito's flat and Knox answered.[24] Kercher spent the early evening with three friends.[25] At about 8:45 pm, she left with one of her friends. They parted company near the friend's flat before 9pm .[26]: 24 Kercher then walked the remaining 500 yards (460 m) to her flat.[25] Yoyohooyo (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Yoyohooyo (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Bluewave, where is this thread on MoMK talk page? The post above sounds like we'd be saying, "Knox couldn't possibly have been involved as she was elsewhere that night."  Sounds like this.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Malke. First of all, I replied to Yoyohooyo on their own talk page. However, the main discussion is archived here. I don't think anything further has happened, though. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're right that it was a discussion in danger of becoming OR. The issue is about whether MK and her friend parted at 8:55pm or "about 8:55" or "perhaps about 8:55"...or could it have been as early as 8:50? The truth is we don't know exactly when they parted and no amount of analysis will tell us the answer. I would be happy with a vague "before 9pm" or "shortly before 9" etc, but you may disagree... Anyway, Yoyohooyo doesn't seem to have pursued this further. Bluewave (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, we don't know, and we're not there to speculate. I'm glad the matter wasn't pursued.  So many other arguments to take up over there XD, so little time!Malke 2010 (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Rendlesham Forest incident
The editor calling himself Dr Fil has been working on the Rendlesham Forest incident page but a lot of his stuff looks pretty weaselly to me. I took out a link he made to a news report about a press conference (I don't regard such things as encyclopedic sources) but he huffily reinstated it on the grounds it was 'factual'. There's no doubt he has an agenda but of course the same could be said about me. Since it was you (I think) who got this article in shape in the first place can you have a look and let me know what you think? Skeptic2 (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I decided to get in and make some changes myself. Now watch for the edit war! Good point you picked up about Hill-Norton not being an MP -- seems Dr Fil's attention to detail is not so good after all. BTW, have you heard that Burroughs and Penniston, two of the witnesses on the first night, plan to return to Rendlesham forest for the 30th anniversary of the sighting in December? Skeptic2 (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

MoMK
The article's been unlocked and I hope things will stay calm for now. Also, I've not heard from TMCk lately. Have you?Malke 2010 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Time to give Thanks
Bluewave

Nomination of Tokio Uchida for deletion
The article Tokio Uchida is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jayron  32  05:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bert Jansch
Hi SilkTork, I notice you added (some time ago!) a template to the Bert Jansch article, saying that the lead section should be expanded. I am keen to address the problem...did you have any specific suggestions of what should be added please? Thanks! Bluewave (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One way of doing the lead is to include a brief summary of each section. The lead should be able to stand by itself as a mini-article, giving a reader the essential information. People tend to structure the lead so that the main points go in the first paragraph - Full name and dates, where born, occupation and why notable: significant recordings and a brief assessment culled from reliable sources - it is permissible to use tertiary sources for such overviews, and people find AllMusic.com quite useful for that, though other sources can and should be consulted. The second (and if needed, third) paragraph is generally given over to a summary of the person's biography and career. The last paragraph is then generally awards and achievements and a little more detailed assessment of notability. Take a look at Chuck Berry and Van Morrison.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I'll have a go at improving it if no-one beats me to it (unlikely!) Bluewave (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at a rewrite, on the Talk:Bert Jansch page. I didn't want to tinker about with the article itself until I'm confident of improving it...it is classified as a "good article", after all! I'd welcome your views on the draft. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That is good. Though, please, edit the article. We need editors to be WP:Bold. You clearly are capable, so don't hesitate to improve articles, regardless of their status. There is a current discussion regarding people not editing and staying on Wikipedia. I've just checked your contributions - you are the main contributor to Bert Jansch and took it to GA level. Why are you unsure about directly editing it?  SilkTork  *YES! 13:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Request
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom case regarding The Beatles
Hi Bluewave, this is just a friendly notification to inform you that the Arbitration Commitee has declined to hear the case regarding The Beatles to which you were a party. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, but no surprise that it was declined :-) Bluewave (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't leave me a message...
... because I will not be editing Wikipedia and shall not see it. Bluewave (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Jimbo is not the problem; It's editors who don't treat him as an editor but "as a god". Cheers and best to you (doesn't matter if you don't see it. It will sit here just fine.) TMCk (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)