User talk:Melty girl/Archive3

Congratulations!
I see that Cillian Murphy is the featured article of the day, and I know that this is largely the result of your hard work. You've every reason to be happy and proud, as it is well-deserved. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive'  00:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for your kind message! How nice! --Melty girl (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure you are now happy that the featured article day has passed. The deleted image issue has been finished, though not properly in my mind, because the remaining pig eye image is not as good. I was thinking that if you have access to the old image, you might consider uploading the old image over the existing one, if you really think it would enhance the article better. I know it is sneaky, though likely not improper as you are improving the existing image and you might get away with it. ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally agreed about which image was superior and the resolution. I did post about that swap idea, but haven't yet had time to check for a response yet. I actually don't think it is sneaky -- those who think the image was a duplication shouldn't mind which image is present so long as only one is. The only problem is that I will need to rebuild the rationale and copyright tag, because although they're from the same scene, the current one is a promo shot and the new one is a screenshot. --Melty girl (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are entirely welcome! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive'  19:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)



Page protection question
Protection of today's featured article tends to be a controversial issue (see WP:NOPRO for example), but in extreme cases the article is protected. Yeah, the section editing bug crops up when the body of a section is on the same line as the header (I think this happens with the alternative music newsletter). Congratulations on your main page FA though; that's one more than me :) CloudNine (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Irish Examiner
Hi Melty, I'm just recovering from a week long food coma so I'm a bit behind on all fronts in life. Looks like Wikipedia had lots of holiday drama and so I have to catch up on my reading. I'll check those sources on our friend Cillian tonight. (I'm sad that I missed his day on the front page. How did it go?) --JayHenry (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, my good WikiFriend Scartol just had his first FA, Honore de Balzac, up on the main page last week and it was a bit traumatic. (Everyone thought it was quite original to change his name to Honore de Ballsack.)  At the end of the day we looked over the article and found out that over the 48 hour period in which it appeared on the main page it was in a vandalized state for 48 minutes or roughly one minute every hour.  I'm not sure if that's good or not.  I mean, on the one hand it's valuable for visitors to see that they actually can edit.  I know before I created my account I was witness to some less-than-helpful edits, and part of what made me realize that Wikipedia had potential was seeing how quickly those changes were reverted.  But is that sort of lesson worth having thousands of people see "Harry de Ballsack was a French author who..."   I can see it both ways, I guess. --JayHenry (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

But I'm a Cheerleader FAC
But I'm a Cheerleader is now a Featured Article. Thanks very much for your comments, suggestions and support, they were much appreciated! -- Beloved Freak  19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that -- you're quite welcome. And congrats! Your hard work was recognized -- much deserved. --Melty girl (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2007 Newsletter
The November 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

David Lovering
I've put the David Lovering article up for peer review here. Since your comments were very helpful in the Joey Santiago FAC, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the article. CloudNine (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I have a lot on my plate right now, but I will try to take a look as soon as I can. I have to admit, I'm really rooting for you to finish Kim Deal. But I'm kind of glad you haven't because I'm so busy! Anyway, keep up the great Pixies work, and I'll try to take a look at David Lovering soon. --Melty girl (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Surname
"(→Subsequent uses of names - surname has a broader meaning than family name; pseudonymous surnames aren't family names; the term "surname" precedes use of family names)"

So, type in "surname" and you will be redirected to family name. Melty, what you said is not 100% true. Also I would like to see a source from you, just like as if you were writing an article.

For instance:
 * The "last part" of a name in some cultures (Korean, Chinese) is actually the family name, and we obviously do not call them by their given names
 * Some cultures have multiple family names (Spanish, Portuguese)
 * Some cultures have no "Family names"
 * In some use the given name is the formal form of address, i.e. with Vietnamese

My edits ought to stand, so I will not only revert yours shortly, BUT I will also clarify this "surname" monkey business by stating that in some cases the family name should NOT be used.

Suppose "Surname" may have a broader meaning, but it is NOT to be used in the formal manner in meanings other than family name -i.e. we do not call Megawati Sukarnoputri "Sukarnoputri" and we do not call Icelandic people by their patronymics. Do you understand what I am saying?

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, this has an incredibly uncivil tone. Why so hostile over one disagreement at our first encounter? Sheesh. I am copying this exchange to the policy's talk page and would like to continue it there please.


 * You changed all the instances of "surname" to "family name" on a WP policy page. But the two terms are not completely interchangeable, so I changed them back.


 * You say "Type in 'surname' and you will be redirected to family name." You're asking me for sources while citing Wikipedia as a source? Not really a valid argument. Here's my source:
 * surname. (n.d.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surname.
 * c.1330, "name, title, or epithet added to a person's name," from sur "above" + name; modeled on Anglo-Fr. surnoun "surname" (c.1325), variant of O.Fr. surnom, from sur "over" + nom "name." Meaning "family name" is first found 1375. Hereditary surnames existed among Norman nobility in England in early 12c., among common people began to be used 13c., increasingly frequent until near universal by end of 14c. The process was later in the north of England than the south. The verb is attested from 1548.


 * While "surname" has become somewhat interchangeable in English for "family name," it is not completely interchangeable with "family name." "Last name" isn't a good use either, since some surnames ("above the name") do not come last. Some older biography subjects will simply not have "family names" because they predate such a thing. Surname can also come from a profession or a title or an epithet and not be a family name at all -- or they can be pseudonyms that are not the person's family name.


 * Finally, some of what you're talking about here and what you did to the page goes beyond terminology and gets into the area of changing a WP guideline. You cannot simply step in and change a guideline like this. It must be discussed and consensed upon first. --Melty girl (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Before I go, I see: "Wow, this has an incredibly uncivil tone. "


 * Melty: I think comments like this make the situation a lot worse. Maybe I should loosen up a bit, but I think the phrasing here rubs me the wrong way. I'll try to speak more civilly, but at the same time try to modify how you say this. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, please see this: Talk:Surname WhisperToMe (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You told me I was 100% wrong, that I was up to "monkey business", that your edits must stand, and closed with the imperious, "Do you understand what I am saying?" All I did was comment that you were uncivil. Then I went on to respond about the substance at hand in an even-handed tone. I don't see a problem. --Melty girl (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the wording: " 100% true. " - I did not say you were 100% wrong. I said your statement was not not 100% true - meaning you were mostly right. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant was, regarding this: "surname has a broader meaning than family name; pseudonymous surnames aren't family names; the term "surname" precedes use of family names" - While it is true that this can sometimes be the case, the sentence was written as a general rule - that is what I meant - It is correct that a surname could be interpreted a something else (although I still wanted a source - which I have)
 * I was not trying to insult you when I said "monkey business" - I just meant I felt the actual dispute was pointless.
 * Now I understand what happened - It was a misinterpretation of written words. I understand that it happens. There is a difference between "you are not right" and "you are not 100% right" - the latter implies that a statement is mostly correct, but not entirely so. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said about "100%". It still seems a little demanding and harsh to me though. You might want to take a little more care to be polite when you disagree with people. --Melty girl (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I started the article Surname and I can see if I can add more to the general convention of a "surname" as opposed to a strict "family name" convention WhisperToMe (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Non-free image in infobox in Terry Fator
Hello Panda and Melty girl, I think I meant to say WP:FUC; it is the first criteria listed there. To be honest, I also learned this rule when I was warned about adding a FU image to an infobox (see ). --Kudret abi Talk 04:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

MOS
Even though I am discussing this on the talk page, I am putting this on your talk page as a reminder regarding Wikipedia practices.

I saw: "Last, the second phrase makes no sense whatsoever: you're amending an MOS guideline by telling people to consult an MOS guideline."

See, we have MOSes covering all subjects, and we have specific MOSes for specific subjects.

For instance, Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) covers Japanese people, so a person making a biography on a Japanese person should consult both Manual of Style (biographies) and MOS-JA. MOS Bio covers all people, while the information in MOS Ja covers Japanese people. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Responding at the talk page, where it belongs, and where I already asked you to keep it. --Melty girl (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you asked me to keep it there, but I felt this point is so important that I intentionally put this in your talk page. It is not just relevant to the debate; it is relevant to all aspects of Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Want me to respond here? OK... I already knew what you're telling me. --Melty girl (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, remember the proposal at WP:Biography? I thought of a way to solve the problem, but I have had no responses. I made some major revisions based on your suggestions and Kaldari's suggestions. I would like to see if you have any further questions about the newly-revised sentence. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
  You got a Christmas card! → → →

Robin Cox
Rather than challenge the undue weight issue I have added Mr. Cox' ensemble as one of the groups who have commissioned work from Pamela Z. I hope that this is an acceptable addition. I appreciate any feedback.Canticle (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This looks much better. --Melty girl (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

LGBT people
Hi, Melty girl! You've been changing the LGBT lists, and I wanted to run some things by you for your opinion.

First, you should know that I shepherded S through Z lists through the FL process, so I may exhibit WP:OWN - I'll try not to :)

Taking T-V as an example, I'm a bit worried about the wikilinks you changed. Things like not linking *many* of the occupations (Jazz musician, Memorist, LGBT rights activist, etc). Shouldn't the first instance of each occupation be wikilinked?

Also, I had been trying to keep the professions pretty general, mostly so that column didn't get overwhelmed. For instance, I would just put "Musician" rather than "Jazz musician", or "Composer" rather than "20th century classical composer". When that column has a lot of text, it makes each row longer.

Thanks for all your work on the lists - in general, they've needed another set of fingers to clean them up a bit, and I'm glad you're doing it :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of service. The lists are great, and some of them seemed to be badly in need of MOS help.


 * About the wikilinks... this was not my main focus, so I have to admit that I may have been somewhat inconsistent there. Also, each list seemed to have different styles. But here's my take on it: as I learned when shepherding an article through FAC, WP:OVERLINK states that plain English words should not be linked simply to for a definition. A wikilink should offer helpful context. In this case of these people lists, offering a wikilink for each occupation the first time it appears is not necessarily helpful. For example, is it truly helpful to wikilink writer or politician? I don't think so, and I don't think a rationale of symmetry for first mention of every occupation overcomes the argument of WP:OVERLINK. That said, I do think some occupations should certainly be linked -- I added some myself in many instances -- and I don't think I was necessarily consistent about this issue. What do you think about this? After we discuss it, I could go back over the lists with this issue more primarily in mind -- or we both could.


 * Second, again with the idea of helpfulness foremost, while I see where you're coming from on the profession column width, I think it is possible to go so generic that the data is barely helpful to list readers. "Musician" and "Composer" encompass such a wide range of things, and they don't really give the reader much information. Saying "Pop musician" or "Rock musician" or "Classical musician" offers so much more, and doesn't take up much space in exchange for the helpful info it conveys. I agree that "20th century classical composer does take up a lot of space, and could be shortened to "classical composer." But I still think it's worth noting "classical composer" versus "musical theater composer" -- they're very different. And so many other listed people's professions are longer than one word or list more than one thing, so I don't think it's necessary to go radical on all the musicians and composers and make them be just one word and thus unnecessarily generic. Also, I'll just note that the format for listing musicians was far from coherent, and that was a main part of my focus. Some were labelled "singer-songwriter", some were "singer", some were "drummer", some were "bassist, composer, lyricist," and so on. I made the format uniform, changing everyone to "<> musician," with the occasional addition of "(<>)" for people not famous outside of their band. I think this is a big improvement over the previous sprawl. For one thing, most latter-day musicians write music, so it's usually unnecessary to also say "songwriter" or "composer" -- "Composer" is for musicians not primarily known as performers. Also, singers are musicians; the singer versus musician (instrumentalist) division is false, and anyway, many, many lead singers also are instrumentalists, so this was unnecessarily narrow. Unless every musician is going to be listed by instrument(s), singers shouldn't be. So all this is where I'm coming from on the musician issue... and there's more that could be done for other professions. (BTW, I also got rid of the unnecessarily gendered "Businessman" and "Businesswoman".) I look forward to your comments.


 * Last, the issue that I realized I was confused about halfway through this pass was the "Profession" column. I suddenly realized that that's what the title of the column was, but many people listed did not make the list because of achievements in their professions. In most of those cases, they were listed because their partners' significance made them well-known, they were activists, or they were criminals or victims. It seems misleading to list readers to put their profession and not their claim to fame that got them on the list. I wonder if the "Profession" column might be better titled "Significance" or something like that, or if the "Notes" field should be used more. What do you think? --Melty girl (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow - you got way more specific than I was ready for!
 * Let's see - where to start...
 * History: User:Dev920 started really whipping these lists into shape and adding a bunch of people to them. We're actually about halfway through this list and chugging along.  When she got done the "A"s, she shepherded it through FL.
 * I picked up from the other end and worked on Z, moving backwards. Dev had to go to school, so she wasn't able to keep Featuring, but I've managed to put S through Z to FL status.
 * Profession - no one has really liked that column from the get-go. As you noted, some of these people aren't noted for their profession at all.  David Sherlock, for instance, is a writer.  But he's better known for being Graham Chapman's partner.  So I think I like "Significance" or perhaps "Notability" better.
 * Specificity profession - My thought on that is that the lists are mostly about the people, with a tidbit of information about each. If anyone really wants to know what genre a writer is in, they'll click the article.  Furthermore, having a generic term helps when scanning the list - for instance I can look at the "T-V" list and quickly see there are a lot of politicians (or whatever).  If the column is too specific, that bogs the reader down. I kinda feel that anything more than two words is over-kill if we're focusing on it being a list of people.
 * You also commented on the .. variety .. of music-related professions. In the S-Z lists, anyway, I plead guilty.  I didn't spend much time on the professions - more of a "what do they do? Music? Great - throw a label on 'em" kind of thing.  &lt;sheepish grin &gt;
 * Wikilinking professions - I don't really care much. I still think even the generic professions should be wikilinked, but only for consistency's sake. But it's not important to me.
 * Notes column - There was a discussion about this somewhere... Here it is. I think we discussed combining the almost-useless "Bisexual" column with the "References" column into one "Notes" column.  Then we could add "L", "G", or "B" in the column, with the ref, and save some space.
 * I suspect we should really take this entire conversation to Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Maybe break the conversation into manageable topics. See if anyone else has anything to add, then make changes to all the lists as necessary. What do you think?
 * And thanks for letting me know - I hadn't watchlisted your page - though I have now! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We probably should move this discussion... feeling a bit overwhelmed this week though. One comment: I strongly disagree with you about how "having a generic term helps when scanning the list". To me, as a reader, I'm not scanning the list to see how many politicians or musicians there are. I'm reading for two reasons: to see if there are names I recognize on the list, or, alternately, if there are people I'm not familiar with that I might want to know more about. There are many more of the latter, and if they're all generically identified, then it's not useful. On the other hand, if I see "Punk rock musician" and it's someone I haven't heard of, if I like punk, I might be interested to click on the person's name. But if it's all generic, and all the hundreds and hundreds of musicians I haven't heard of are simply "Musician", I'm less likely to check out any of them; the list is simply less useful. And I just don't think it's too long to say "Punk rock musician" or "Classical composer" if other people are going to be "Writer, painter, novelist." I think the photos, which narrow the space available for the text, are of less value than short but specific descriptions.

Copied (and replied) on Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What the FAC
First, thanks kindly for your message about Emma Goldman. It was the most collaborative project I've done here, and while I generally don't work well with others (I prefer to do my thing and have other folks polish when I'm done), it went well, I think. My next FA will be on the Indonesian occupation of East Timor.

About FAC: I agree with you that it can be a very tiring, annoying process. However, I haven't had the same one-on-one battles which apparently plagued you during the FAC for Cillian Murphy. When issues have come up, other editors have gotten involved (as the inimitable did in your case) and balanced the discussion.

I would say that my attitude toward the FAC process has become one of humble meekness. Those who oppose wield tremendous weaponry, whether they know it or not – and I realized after a couple of times through that I simply don't care about most of the things they mention. So I'll fix the small things and defend the stuff I really want to keep. I'm also very very deferential, since apparently some folks simply have axes to grind for whatever reason. Unless I'm willing to take on their illogical crusades, I'll just be like the blade of grass in the tornado and let them pass. (It's worth noting that the admins watching FAC probably don't have time to read all the commentary, and I expect they consider lengthy discussions a sign of non-consensus – another reason to not argue with folks there.)

The other thing I've noticed (for me, at least) is that the going is definitely smoother with each iteration. Part of this is because the journey always feels longer when you make it for the first time. But the other part is that we internalize the constructive criticisms (and hopefully not the destructive kind) from the last time through. Thus we can head off at the pass the same sorts of squabbling in future FACs. I also think that 's recent involvement has helped improve the speed and flow of the FAC process.

Reading through the CM article, it's clear that you're a good writer: "chameleonic" is a great word, and phrases like "lovelorn, hapless supermarket stocker" bring the prose to life. Alas, this can only go so far on Wikipedia – sometimes because editors simply want a boring, staid style, but often because it's necessary to keep things simple. Colorful words have the potential to overshadow the subject, and that's the last thing good encyclopædia writing should do.

So I say: Don't give up! If you're working on articles which are important to you (as I expect you are), then remember that the world deserves comprehensive information about those people and events. Don't let the Haterade™ keep you from getting back up.

Cheers. – Scartol  •  Tok  18:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo
I just reverted your edit as being inappropriate. The article states that he was multi-talented and a "Renaissance man". Poetry was part of this general concept. It is obvious that not every sphere of activity can be full dealt with in an article of that length, so the article deals most fully with his primary area of fame, painting. But to delete from the list an aspect of the man's creativity just because it is not elaborated on is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the wiki intro. As for his musicanship, it is further mentioned in the biographical section.

Amandajm (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My edit to the lead sentence, removing "poet" and "musician" from the things Leonardo da Vinci is known for, was far from "inappropriate." The lead is supposed to state the things the subject is significant for and summarize the contents of the article. If Leonardo is so significant as a musician and a poet, then why isn't it in the article? If the article cannot even muster a sentence about his poetry, then it should not be in the lead, as per WP:LEAD. As for his musicianship, there is only one sentence where a person is quoted as saying he played music well, and no other mention of this in the article; therefore it should not be in the lead, because this makes the lead, well, misleading. It's an assertion that leads nowhere. You will notice that I did not delete the mention that he plays music -- I have no problem with that sourced mention. But one mention from a friend that he played music well does not mean that he should be called a musician in the lead. There is no support in the article for the assertion that he was significant as a performing musician. Millions of people play musical instruments well, but this does not make them significant/famous as musicians. Should every famous person who has the ability to play an instrument well be mentioned as a musician in the lead of their article if that's not what they're famous for? Of course not.


 * Look, if you can show that Leonardo was reknowned and influential for his poetry and musical performances or compositions, then by all means add that to the article and thus back the lead's assertion. If you cannot do so, then "poet" and "musician" should not be in the lead sentence. But I don't have the appetite or time to struggle with you over it. Hopefully someone else will also see this flaw in the article and correct it, one way or the other. --Melty girl (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wind That Shakes the Barley (and keeps shaking it, apparently...)
I was just getting ready to leave you a message in regard to this article, and I see that you have already posted a message on the article's talk page. I am glad that you are paying attention. I do not think that Kingstowngalway is a bad chap, or maliciously-intended, perhaps too enthusiastic. For his part, Twins Too! is not entirely blameless, either, often (in my opinion) exchanging one POV for another. I do believe, though, that we can work together to sort this out. I thank you for your time and efforts. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive'  03:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree -- it's clear that Kingstowngalway intends nothing but the best. But he is still pretty clueless. POV is a tough issue for a film like this, but hopefully it can be worked out. --Melty girl (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, almost any description of this film will seem POV to someone---leave out the part about the Auxies who are killed in the pub, and someone may think you are pushing a pro-IRA POV; leave out the part about the Auxies killing the unarmed Irishman at the beginning of the film, and someone will think you are pushing a pro-Brit POV. Still and all, a blow-by-blow description of the film is simply not appropriate.  We have to hit the high points, give a good outline of the film, and at the same time, not ruin it for anyone who's not seen it already.  Not easy, to be sure, but it can be done.  Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  00:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, ruining the film for people who haven't seen it is not a worry. Wikipedia includes spoilers. Plot means just that -- the whole plot. Not blow-by-blow, but still, the whole plot. Otherwise, I agree with what you're saying. Happy New Year, 01:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 23:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you anyway :)

Police,Mad,Jack

Opinion, please...
I recently added a plot section to 42nd Street and included one quote from the film, something like try cashing reputation at the bank. Someone else edited it out, but I think it goes to setting the tone for the character and era (1932: the Depression). Or should I send it to WikiQuotes? Will check back here for your opinion. Happy New Year! Thank you, Shir-El too  23:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not familiar with the film or WikiQuotes. But I do think that in general, only the most significant/famous quotes should be used in plot sections. --Melty girl (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter
The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Subsequent names and cultural conventions
Hello! :) - Please check this out: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29 WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Requests for rollback/Denied/January 2008. RFRBot (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have now been approved and rights have been granted. The above bot message was due to your malformed request being rejected, it was later fixed. Cheers, NoSeptember  17:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirlston
Regarding my objection on the Emma Watson FAC, indeed, my objection was taken care of. Thanks for writing in my user talk page.

I do believe outperformed is not a very proper word. It more readily applies to computers - "the new Intel processor outperformed the old Intel processor" - in something quantitative - but in something qualitative, it doesn't seem to work. I am very amenable to further discussion.

Thanks for reading this message --Kiyarr lls ton

[Message left on 04:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)]


 * You're welcome. And I think we can safely agree to disagree since the issue has been resolved. Cheers, Melty girl (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we can agree that the issue is past.
 * I've replied to responses you made to BuddingJournalist in Featured article candidates/Emma Watson‎ - would you mind taking a look? Do you believe the suggestions I made are helpful? Thanks for reading this message.
 * Cheers,
 * --Kiyarr lls ton 15:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use in Emma Watson
I'm rather inclined to agree with you - Fair Use is an area where one person can easily, and quite legitimately, stall an entire article. Hammersoft is clearly an adherent to the letter of WP:FU rather than the spirit. Happy‑melon 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Emma Watson
Hey Melty! Since you, Indrian and Happy Melon seemed to be making good progress I wandered off. I'll try to give the article a read tomorrow if I'm not too busy at work. I read the FAC page just now. I think Ceoil makes an interesting point that the article has "little insight." I think that's possibly true, but I wonder: how much insight (reliably sourced) is possible in an article about a teenage actress who's known, really, for a single role? Anyways, thanks for the note. I'll look in. p.s. I saw you on my watchlist just now reverting vandalism on Juno. I was drug to it over the weekend, but I ended up really loving it. I was blown away by Ellen Page. --JayHenry (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey back atcha! Agreed about the "little insight", but I commented exactly what you said about her being a young actor with a narrow career. I highly doubt that any publication has done an essay on the meaning of Emma Watson yet! I feel like "insight" is often beaten out of WP articles anyway. :( Oh, and totally agreed about Ellen Page and Juno! --Melty girl (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmn indeed. To be honest I'm a little annoyed that this FAC hasn't been closed one way or another. If it passes, champagne all round, of course. If it fails, I'll renominate ASAP - I hope I can now count on your and Indrian's support, so that would make it appear rather more clear-cut and make the half-hearted opposes seem even less valid. Third time lucky and all that. But the longer it stays open, the more half-baked criticism piles on top of the legitimate (and actioned) comments, and the less like consensus it appears, even though (as you concisely phrased it) the only real opposition comes from a catch-22 and an Idontlikeit. It is starting to get to me a little though - I was worried that it would be passed on my wikibreak and some IP would steal the star, but it appears that's not going to be a problem. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So true. I really think this nom was a victim of Wiki and life overload happening to Raul and Sandy. You can count on me third time around. But do you think I should ask now, or protest in the sad case of failure based on "I don't like it" and a complete misunderstanding about what constitutes neutral language. --Melty girl (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure, but I don't think it's likely to do any harm. I notice Raul's been active today although not on WP:FAC, so I'm not sure what to think.  I'd feel very awkward asking myself, but as a convert to the cause, perhaps you can say something without too much of a conflict of interest. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll see if I can word it properly, probably later tonight and if I have any doubts, I won't ask. --Melty girl (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope he's happy. Remind me to take another look at that phrasing in a week or so, as it offends me on a variety of levels! <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Melty, you left a question on my talk page during my break; has this question been resolved, or do I need to look at something still? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy! Thanks for getting back to me about this. I had forgotten about this issue. I'm not going to oppose based on it, so while I am curious as to what you think about the issue, it is not urgent, and I know that you have a lot to catch up on. I am more curious right now to learn whether you consider an oppose that's worded simply, "I am not convinced this article should be a FA. Also, you could surely add some pictures from the movies she played in," to be actionable or valid. The first clause from this AWOL reviewer seems unactionable to me. The second clause seems not based on the FA criteria; also, a previous anti-fair use opposer struck opposition contingent on the removal of all pictures from movies. If the subsequent pro-screenshot opposition can be allowed to stand, then there's no way this article can be promoted, because two reviewers with opposite views on fair use happened to give reviews. (And there is zero chance that the two reviewers will discuss their differences and compromise.) Last, I wonder I'm assuming correctly that critical comments that do not include an oppose are not considered to block a nomination. Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Melty, I haven't read the FAC closely yet, so I'm only basing my response on what you added here. The quote you gave isn't actionable.  I can recall situations where a critical comment was sufficient to stall a promotion: depends on what they are.  A well-placed argument that an article is POV or not reliably sourced from an experienced reviewer, for example, would give pause.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply -- I'm glad I asked. The quote I gave is the full review from an opposer, so it's good to know that it's not actionable. All other opposes have been struck, except for one other oppose based solely on one sentence's use of the word "good" to describe straight A grades, but the nominator changed that wording today. There are three supports and everything else falls under the heading "comment," so I have no idea how you all will interpret that. --Melty girl (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Melty, I finally gave the article another read through tonight (I've been a bit busy with one of my own). It's nice to read a zippy little article.  I get so bogged down by the length of a lot of what comes through FAC.  It's interesting that this article and the Cillian article both got stuck with such odd, and minor really, issues.  There are surprisingly few FAs about celebrities, I wonder what it is about famous people that makes these topics so difficult. --JayHenry (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great that you're working on the Ryan White page. I have had the same thoughts about celebrity FACs -- they really do seem to bring out some weird reactions in people. --Melty girl (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I shouldn't jump into FAC discussions before I've had my morning tea, as I attempted to do today; I've made a muck of things, I fear, in trying to (clumsily) agree with you and others in support of Watson's feminist statement. In short, I agree with you. The statement should stay and requires no other explanation (especially since one doesn't exist). Okay, as you were... :) María ( habla con migo ) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh heh! I appreciate your chiming in. The discussion has been rather frustrating. Apparently, verified straight-A grades can't be described as "good" either. Oy vey, what a misreading of neutrality. Okay, as I was... ;) --Melty girl (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... come to think of it María's recent FAC : about an ursine celebrity suffered from the same affliction. There's definitely something about these articles. --JayHenry (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What a funny thing. --Melty girl (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay, I believe you're on to something! I feel your pain...  María ( habla  con migo ) 02:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope Melty doesn't mind me rambling along on her page here :) I think that part of the problem is that there are relatively few standards to refer back to for FAs on celebrities.  One of the things that helps with doing a species of animal is that there are already a large number of animal FAs that can be used as a reference point.  Same thing with historical events, authors, literary works, famous buildings, bands even, etc.  That's not as much the case with modern actors and celebrities (I'll leave polar bears out of my musings for now).  Furthermore, we can't really turn to Britannica for guidance on what the most encyclopedic article about Will Smith should look like.  I think that's a part of the problem.  No standards to refer back to for even basics like what sort of sources to include, what sort of mention to make of physical characteristics, how much space to give to critics, how much to give to an actors' own musings.  It's all unexplored territory. --JayHenry (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's all very true. I would add that I think there are FAC regulars who see celebrity articles as trivial, and bring a touch of hostility to the subject matter in general. Also, I think people tend to get confused about neutrality, trivia, and weasel words when it comes to people whose very notability and jobs are founded, at least to some degree, on what they look like, whether they're Angelina Jolie or John Goodman. Sex appeal is so crucial to the fame of most celebrities, and it drives the very economy of the entertainment industry, so it's far from trivial or fawning to discuss looks, but nobody knows how to do it comfortably or appropriately -- or if they do, much of it gets stripped out at FAC. Blue eyes notwithstanding!!! ;) --Melty girl (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Melty, do you suppose you could rally any of the Emma Watson troops to review Judy Garland or Reese Witherspoon? It's disappointing to archive FACs simply because they've gotten insufficient review, and the FAC list is always going to be above 60 if we don't have enough reviewers. Any help ya'll can lend would be appreciated. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I hear ya. I was hoping to be able to do more in-depth reviews of those two myself, but I haven't had the time. I'll drop some announcements around. --Melty girl (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Melty. Too many of these are languishing, and I can't move 'em one way or another without review.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)