User talk:HowardBerry/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 01:56, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Speedy deletions
Hi Howard. I see that you're doing RC patrol&mdash;keep up the good work.

One thing to keep in mind when your tagging speedy deletion candidates&mdash;always watch for possible redirects you can make. For example, Alotta Fagina (which you tagged as a speedy) can be redirected to Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, where she has a mention.

No deletions required, and somone is less likely to recreate the article in the future. I've similarly redirected Alotta Vagina, since it's an obvious misspelling (the anon did, after all, create the article under that name as well.)

You might also want to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, since technically being a minor character doesn't qualify for a speedy. (Actually, our fiction guidelines urge merger and redirection.)

Anyhow, I don't mean to come down hard on you; the articles really didn't need to be there. Just some stuff to keep in mind for the future. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi again. No harm, no foul!  Even admins get into some (pretty silly) debates about what qualifies for speedy deletion, and often rules get bent by people using their common sense or judgement.  Either way, it sometimes gets ugly, so I usually try to find the 'third way' wherever possible.  Merging and redirecting is easier to fix (if it goes wrong) than deletion, it doesn't require an admin, and it tends to result in fewer bruised feelings.  Carry on with the good work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Morphology
Argh. I'm sorry that your article got deleted - again - even though you'd tried to protect it with the tag. Maybe next time you should write the article first, then paste it into a "new article" window?

Just a suggestion (from someone who had nothing to do with it getting speedied, but who saw it when I was doing New Articles patrol). DS 15:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, I guess that's what I'll do in the future! Well, I'm still learning the way things work around here it seems... PeregrineAinsleyWotenuff 16:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

R&H(D) cover
Not much I can say to that except that I bought mine in aHMV, shrinkwrapped, a year or two back and has no sign of lentacularism :) [A good thing IMO, but not the point], but bar the solid Marty is exactly the same as yours, down to the Sun quote. Later run which didn't bother with the gimmick maybe? - SoM 22:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Dennis Berry
Some relation, I assume? Are you the one child mentioned in the text? The article looks fine to me; I've made some minor changes in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style (things like punctuation preferences, headings, internal links), together with a few that bring it into line with most music-related articles (like the "prettytable" template). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, grandson of course (I hadn't looked at your User page and done the calculations). Looking at the article, I was so surprised that there was no article for copyist that I started one, so it had more than one good effect... --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"Apple Honey" - was this the same as the one recorded by Woody Herman? I have this on a 78 in the attic somewhere. Dbuckner 15:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Congrats. -- Scïmïłar parley 17:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

User page correction
For such a minor and kind-hearted edit, your response seems a little oversensitive. I'll leave off next time, and not even mention the "Wikipeida" thing - sorry to cause offence! :) - Gobeirne 00:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Howard, thanks for your response. I don't think it is the norm to edit other people's userpages, but when I get in one of those editing moods it's nearly impossible (or, at least, takes supreme willpower) to let a broken link stay uncorrected. No offence taken, and no apology necessary. Keep up the good work! :) - Gobeirne 00:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

ATV Network
Hi HowardBerry, thanks for the message.

Regarding ATV and ITC: the history of these two companies is a bit convoluted, but here goes (skating over many important points):

In the 1950s there were two companies, ITC (actually itself two companies with the same initials, one for sales to Europe and one for sales to North America) and ABDC (the Associated Broadcasting Development Company).

Both applied for an ITV contract when that service first began; ABDC won, ITC didn't. But ABDC ran out of money and brought ITC in to the company to help fund it. The new company was called Associated Broadcasting Company Ltd until October 1955, when Associated British Cinemas won a court case. The company changed its name to Associated TeleVision Ltd. In the early 1960s, the company changed its name to the Associated TeleVision Corporation, and in 1966 again change, to become Associated Communications Corporation, or ACC.

With me so far? ;)

Now, ACC had lots of subsidiaries. One was ATV Network Ltd, which was the ITV company for London weekends and Midland weekdays (later just the Midlands but all week). Another was ITC - Incorporated Television Co (and also Indepedent Television Co, the European-sales arm but they seemed to drop that name).

Both subsidiaries made programmes, but the crucial difference was that, in general, ATV's programmes were on video and ITC's were on film. ATV distributed ITC's programmes in the UK (by selling them to other ITV companies individually - this is why they were not usually networked in the UK). ITC distributed ATV's programmes outside of the UK.

ATV's own productions were classed, for the purposes of television regulation in the UK, as being domestic ITV shows and thus counted toward the quota of programmes ATV was required to make for the ITV network. ITC's productions were specifically excluded from this - they were treated as non-domestic and non-ATV productions.

In the early 1980s, there was a boardroom coup against Lew Grade who ran ACC. The result was that ACC sold ATV (which had just changed its name to Central) and was left with Lew's old theatre interests and ITC. ITC became ITC Entertainment and was also sold off, leaving ACC with just the theatres.

ITC picked up a lot of ATV's back catalogue, mainly from Polygram who inherited part of it, but also direct from Central. Central held the rest. In the 1990s, Calton Communications purchased the ATV name, then Central itself, then ITC and reunited the split catalogues. Carlton itself then merged with Granada, the resulting company being ITV plc, which therefore now owns the back catalogues of ATV, ITC and Central.

Now, what does this do for production caps? Well, ATV productions were ATV productions for themselves. They made their own programmes to show on their own regional ITV station, sold them to other stations on the ITV network, or put the programmes out as a network-wide simultaneous transmission.

There were never produced for ITC - ATV's regulator, the now-defunct IBA, wouldn't allow that.

However, ITC did sell some of them abroad (there was, just to confuse things, an international sales arm of ATV as well - much of this is for tax reasons) and later distributed them when they were rereleased on VHS in the early 1990s.

But these were not ITC productions... perhaps the category would be better called "ITC distributions" - the phrase ITC themselves used, picked very carefully by the IBA for them. That way you can include the Supermarionation programmes, which were jointly funded by ITC and ATV, but produced by neither of them! (APF being an unrelated company).

Sorry to rant on here, and apologies for the breakneck speed of this potted history and the shrill demands about what was and wasn't ITC and ATV, but ACC and their regulator literally spent 27 years arguing about it and having questions asked in Parliament and the like, so I've got an excuse for why I think it matters!! :o) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Joined! Now start the to-do list, and I'll happily get on with to-do-ing! :) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

ITC project
Thanks for the barnstar. I decided what the heck and threw a few infoboxes up right away. I hope to fix up the episode lists for a couple of the Anderson shows eventually, too. I agree The Champions needs work. I did the top half and then someone decided to try and do a full episode guide for the second half, but appears to have given up. 23skidoo 20:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Bamore/The Saint
Virtually all ITC productions are "A Someone Production for ITC World-Wide Distribution". It's a tax dodge. All of these ITC/ATV/ACC etc things were. All the companies mentioned were on-off, usually owned by the producer and the writer - the money from the series then goes into the company, where it is paid out to the writer and the producer, meaning they avoid income tax (important when the production is a big success as the top rate in the late 1960s was 19s 6d in the pound - 95%).

Also, if a show bombed, ITC was protected as it could write-off the loss against tax on the one company rather than taking the body-blow itself. This still happens today - look how James Bond is an EON Production for United Artists, or how some films say in tiny writing at the end A Universal (Programme Name), Inc Production.

ITC, of course, didn't own any studios of its own, so you could say it never produced anything - programmes were either made at Elstree, ATV's television base, or at Boreham Wood - Associated British Pictures Corporation/MGM British's main lot. This, of course, means that a lot of ITC shows were really ABC Weekend Television productions for ACC, just with the name hidden (the two companies did not get on in ITV, but were happy to give each other work outside)!

Confused yet? You will be! ;) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Stubs for deletion
Your views would be welcome at Stub_types_for_deletion. Thanks. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 18:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Cult television
Added my support. I can't imagine why this user insists that (for instance) "The X-Files" isn't considered cult - I note that he/she has only edited this one article, though, so he may simply be continually trying to wind us up? Stephenb (Talk) 18:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it to the mediation page. I've added to the discussion, too - basically suggesting that Sanhedrin should get a consensus before removing the shows. There is potentially a compromise here - various (new) pages of "List of cult shows in the UK", "...US" etc. - if he'd made those, rather than simply blanking the existing list, I probably wouldn't have complained (providing all such lists were linked from the article). Stephenb (Talk) 11:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi HowardBerry, mediation has begun on Requests for mediation/Cult television. I saw that you already put in a request at the Mediation Cabal; probably we should try to keep fire fighting on one front only, so we should discuss whether you'd prefer the MC to handle this case. Either way, it's easiest if there's only one mediation going on. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  19:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Question about arbitration
I need a question answered about arbitration. How do I go about requesting it, and what is the procedure?

Merge request revert
Hello. I reverted because a quick glance at the article told me it fit two of the requirements for speedy deletion. It has little or no context and is apparently based on something done by an unremarkable person, and thus the information is not eligible to be included to the main wrestling maneuvers articles (based on a google search that gave no results). The user who created the page was Axelsalsman, obviously connected to the Salsman Driver name. ↪Lakes 01:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem, always good to check.
 * ↪Lakes 01:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Dannii Minogue
Changing images to irrelevant graphic pictures of pornography is vandalism. Changing one picture of Dannii Minogue to another picture of Dannii Minogue is really not. The user is new, and apparently wasn't aware that articles are edited by other people as xe xyrself was editing them, and was wondering why xyr edits weren't sticking. I've managed to obtain xyr attention. But it takes two to tango. It is up to you to be patient and to engage the user in discussion on the user's talk page. Bear in mind that I almost blocked you, too, because you broke the three-revert rule as well. I gave you the benefit of the doubt because you thought that you were reverting vandalism. You won't get it a second time. I'm now hoping that as a more experienced user you will help and guide this new user, and that you will talk to xem, rather than continue to revert war with xem. Please talk to the user on xyr talk page, today. The user apparently wants to contribute to Dannii Minogue articles, and bring them up to the level of the Kylie Minogue articles. Give xem some guidance on what sort of acceptable contributions xe could make. Discuss your respective views on pictures, and on what hair colour Dannii should sport. Uncle G 04:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)