User talk:Michael Anon/Archives/2012/August

Congratulations!
To use this template, add

< please feel free to add it to your user page, wear it with pride ;)--Chip123456 07:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your compliments Chip123456; I've added the box to my updated user page. Michael Anon (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw. I've really enjoyed instructing you. I'm just a few clicks away, so drop in anytime. I'll contact you next week sometime for a quick catch up to see how everything is going. Till then, happy editing!--Chip123456 16:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks, I'll add the barnstar to my collection (and may even make a page for my barnstars … eventually). Michael  An  on  17:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Test notice
Hello, this is a messgae to inform you that your CVUA test is now available and is excpected to be completed before you graduate from the academy. The test can be found here. Thank you.--Chip123456 15:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Chip123456. As I intend to complete the test in a number of edits, would you please ignore the page until I submit it by posting a message to say it's completed? Michael Anon (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure thing, there's no rush :)--Chip123456 15:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do the "things … you [will] take forward in your future vandalism work" (question 16) have to be distinct the "3 things you have learnt during the academy" (question 15)? I ask because I feel that the things I will take from the CVUA will be the things I have learnt. Michael Anon (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, is question 15 meant to be answered with a synopsis of the syllabus while question 16 deals with new things I have learnt? Michael Anon (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Question 15 should be answered based on 3 things you've learnt well. Q 16 is more personal asking how will you use your answers in q 15 to assist you with future work.--Chip123456 15:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike! I've, admittedly, just had a quick look at the test, are you finished? I ask because all of the questionas are answered. IIf not, that's fine, you still have time. Chip123456 12:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've almost finished now – I'm just going to check the test over a final time and then I'll submit it for marking. Michael Anon (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I've finally finished and therefore submit the test for marking. Michael Anon (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

All marked, and you have scored full marks, no surprises there! I ask you, once again, if you are willing to consider rollback, but don't see it as a must! Also, I'm going to graduate you, but before I do that, are there any questions you need answering, or do you need anything else? Thanks!--Chip123456 18:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm please I was so successful. I have considered requesting rollback, but I always like to leave an edit summary and in any event would hesitate to rollback on the basis of one bad revision to such an extent that manually selecting and editing an old version of a page is just as efficient for me. I have no further questions at present, and thanks for the course. Michael Anon (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought I might as well let you know that I have requested rollback to deal with rapid vandalism; edit conflicts otherwise prevent any meaningful removal of unconstructive content.  Michael   An  on  10:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My talk page archive configuration
Hello Chip123456. I appreciate that you meant well, but I am quite happy with the archive configuration I added to my talk page - I would prefer to archive by date as opposed to incrementally archiving. If there is problem the approach I selected, would you please let me know before modifying the settings? Thanks. Michael  An  on  18:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine. But, where do you intend on archiving it to?--Chip123456 18:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The page should archive to, with MiszaBot III  substituting in values for the   and   variables. Sections of the talk page from last month should therefore archive to User talk:Michael Anon/Archives/2012/July (this link should be blue tomorrow).  Michael   An  on  18:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I just wanted to make things easier as the other one is the most simplest and most common. If you need an modifying in the future, I will be happy to assist!--Chip123456 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you think of the new archive arrangement and the two  templates I made?  Michael   An  on  19:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Neat. Good work.--Chip123456 08:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

AIV
Thanks for the report to WP:AIV. I was actually in the middle of blocking the second IP just as you reported them lol! They've now both been blocked for 31 hours each and the two worst vandalised pages I could see have also been semi-protected, one for 4 days and the worst hit for 2 weeks. Thanks again!--5 albert square (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I greatly appreciate such swift and extensive action on my reports. Thanks! Michael   An  on  10:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Rollback
I have approved your request for WP:ROLLBACK at WP:RFP/R. Please use the tool with discretion. Happy vandal fighting! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you - rollback will make removing rapid vandalism much easier. Michael   An  on  14:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, Mike! It's good to see you applied for rollback in the end, it's a really useful tool (see my contribs, I've used it a heck of a lot today, we had a lot if socks). If you require any additional help, bar the links given to you by Kudpung, give me a nudge and I'll help! Also, I'm about to prepare the task and test page for the next student, which will involve me removing your work. I just want you to give me the ok below, just in case you want to copy and paste anything from there to keep. If you want, i can create a page of your work into User:Michael Anon/CVUA. Either way, please let me know so I can prepare it for the next student. Thanks.--Chip123456 20:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer of assistance, but I think I'm OK with rollback for the moment. On the subject of the CVUA pages, would you please move (as opposed to copy - I would prefer the article history to be preserved to allow people to check that the comments on the page were made by the claimed individuals) my answers (User:Chip123456/CVUA and User:Chip123456/CVUA/StudentTest) to the same locations in my user space (User:Michael Anon/CVUA and User:Michael Anon/CVUA/StudentTest)? You can then start a new page with the original questions in your userspace. Michael   An  on  06:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All moved for you :)Chip123456 08:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Michael   An  on  11:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

AUGUST 2012
sorry not to remove some content from Dog meat without explaining why. all I erased was wrong info. actually, almost people including me dont eat dog meat. though i'm korean, i have no experience eating dog meat till now. almost people eat chicken instead. anyway i'm sorry for my behavior. i didn't mean it119.203.24.247 (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello 119.203.24.247. I appreciate your good intent and assure you that there is nothing wrong with the removal of inaccurate content - it just requires adequate explanation and citation. Unfortunately your evidence that dog meat is not frequently eaten in Korea is original research; it would require a  reliable source for the claim to be noted in the article. If you can find a reliable source which attests this, feel free to add this information with a citation. However, I would suggest that the existing allegations are retained due to the amount of evidence supporting them (there could just be a sentence added discussing that the extent to which dog meat is eaten with a link to a supporting source, for example). You might also find the specific article on dog meat consumption in South Korea useful for the relevant citations at the end of the page. I hope this information helps.  Michael   An  on  11:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Preeya Kalidas
Hi Michael,

I was recently trying to make changes to the Wiki entry for Preeya Kalidas but you reverted the changes. The information currently published is very inaccurate. I have pasted the correct and more accurate copy below.

Preeya Kalidas is a British singer and actress of Indian descent. She previously played Amira Masood in the soap opera EastEnders. Contents [hide] •	1 Early life •	2 Acting career •	3 Singing career •	4 Television •	5 Filmography •	6 Album Tracklisting •	7 References •	8 External links [edit]Early life Born in Isleworth,[1] she was raised in Twickenham, south-west London, the daughter of an independent financial adviser father, and mother who works for British Airways.[2] She started ballet classes at the age of three, and tap at five. She then trained at the Sylvia Young Theatre School in London.[3] She trained at Songtime Theatre Arts.[citation needed] She is a Gujarati.[citation needed] [edit]Acting career Kalidas first appeared on screen in the BBC drama Googleyes. She went on to play Usha in a short film called Jump Boy in 1998, directed by Menhaj Huda and written by Harsha Patel. After a number of parts in films and on television, including East is East, Bollywood Queen, My Family and Casualty, in 2002 she appeared as Monica in Gurinder Chadha's film Bend It Like Beckham. She then played the female lead ,after beating thousands of hopefuls ,Priya in the Andrew Lloyd Webber-produced show Bombay Dreams, written by A.R. Rahman, Meera Syal and Don Black.[4] She then starred in the BBC Television series Bodies as Dr. Maya Dutta alongside max beesley and keith allen. In 2007, Kalidas landed the female lead in a West End revival of Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. Appearing as the narrator, she performed with Lee Mead, who won the title role of Joseph in BBC One's Any Dream Will Do talent search series.[5][6] The same year, she starred in the multi-award-winning Channel 4 miniseries Britz. In 2009, Kalidas was cast in the second series of BBC One's Mistresses, playing Carrie,  ITV comedy Mister Eleven as th role of Leanne and soon after joined the nations best loved continuing drama EastEnders in April of that year as Amira Shah, the girlfriend, and later wife of Syed Masood.[7] In January 2010, she decided to quit EastEnders when she was offered a big record contract with Universal Records. Her final episode was broadcast on 26 April 2010. In July 2011, Kalidas revealed that she would be returning to EastEnders in the latter part of 2011.[8] Kalidas, then left the show in March 2012. In 2010 she starred in  Chris Morris film Four Lions playing Sofia, the wife of protagonist Omar (played by Riz Ahmed). The film was released on 7 May, which one a BAfta and Empire Award. In March 2012, it was revealed that Kalidas will again be leaving Eastenders to continue her music career. Her single, “ Love Between Us” was released in April 2012 and was number 1 in the Music Week Chart. In March 2012, it was announced that "Love Between Us" would be the third single from her debut album, and that Kalidas' debut album will be released in April 2012. The track listing is yet to be confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.210.13 (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello 86.167.210.13. Thank you for contacting me about your edits to Preeya Kalidas. The reason I reverted your changes was because you removed large sections of the article, including the subject's date of birth, biographical details and relevant citations, without explanation. I also noticed that at least one of the changes introduced a peacock term ("starred"). As there is potentially a good case for the removal of some of the article, I would simply ask that you explain why you have removed content in the edit summary. Alternatively, if you have a conflict of interest you may wish to read Plain and simple conflict of interest guide or contact the Volunteer Response Team for advice about removing inaccurate information from the article. I hope this information helps and please feel free to ask me any further questions. Michael   An  on  18:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about your Cyclops page
You said Zeus later returned the Cyclops from Hades. After Apollo killed them. Where did you read that source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSleach (talk • contribs) 16:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello DarkSleach. I presume you are referring to the cyclops article and specifically to this edit. I made the modification solely because a significant amount of apparently legitimate content had been removed from the article without any explanation. I have no expertise to verify that the returned content is correct, only that it appears to cover relevant topics (the appearance of cyclopes in mythology and literature and in Theogony) and therefore requires justification for removal. If the content is in fact inadequate, feel free to remove or adjust it with an explanation in the edit summary and I won't revert the change. Thanks. Michael   An  on  07:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That answear tell's me nothing
Did Zeus return the Cyclops from Hades. I want to know where that information come's from. Will you please look it up for me. Three wikipedia pages say this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't directly answer your question because, as have I explained, I have little knowledge of the subject and no special access to resources relevant to the topic. I would therefore suggest that you wait for a reply at the humanities reference desk, where people are more likely to be able to answer your question. Michael   An  on  18:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.228.62 (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

R (Jackson)
Hi. I can see you're improving this article - I was never pleased with it - but I did have a couple of comments. Firstly wherever possible avoid using the judgment/speech; secondary sources are preferred because the interpretation of what a judgment/speech means (or even says); your most recent edit did have the effect of removing some of the sourcing from independent and secondary sources and it would be useful to include this. Secondly my memory of the case isn't brilliant but there might be some merit in delineating which argument were actually used in some way, because the propositions have been supported in academic literature using other arguments which weren't actually put to the House. I didn't quite understand "the respondent's arguments are generally accepted in the judgment" in terms of why this should demerit their appearance in the text, following on from my first point. A few things to consider there, anyway. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Grandiose. I must admit I have been rather bold while editing R (Jackson) v Attorney General - I would have discussed the major changes if I had known anyone was taking an active interest in the article (the last substantive edit was in December 2011).
 * I fully accept the point about secondary sources and will add them to the existing content (and amend it where necessary) before going any further with the article.
 * I removed the respondent’s arguments to try to avoid redundancy in the article. My comment that "the respondent's arguments are generally accepted in the judgment" was intended to indicate that I did not what to include the respondent's arguments once when they were made and then again when they were accepted in the judgment. I intend to discuss all interesting arguments relating to parliamentary sovereignty in greater detail in the "Significance" section, but have not yet got round to writing it (I am working through the article in approximate order of the sections). Michael   An  on  06:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've added secondary sources to all the sections I've worked on that require them (the remaining primary sources should only support factual claims, such as the names of the appellants), but feel free to correct or point out any further issues - I would much appreciate the feedback. Michael   An  on  07:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you hadn't seen it Pepper v Hart is a useful Featured Article as a guide to this sort of thing and I'd say it a pretty good "fit" for this sort of thing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer to the featured article - I've been bearing it in mind as I rewrite R (Jackson) v Attorney General. Michael   An  on  11:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Grandiose, would it be OK to remove the "Bibliography" section from R (Jackson) v Attorney General? Citing sources suggests that general references, which are what the section contains, should only be used if short or parenthetical citations are present (which they are not) or if inline citations do not cover all the information in the article (which they already do for the majority of the text and will do for the entire article when I rewrite and considerably extend the "Significance" section). Michael   An  on  10:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There were short citations; somewhere in your edits they became full long citations. So the bibliography is now unneeded (although personally I prefer short citations). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In my defence, the citations were a mixed bag before I started editing: some, such as book citations, were short; some, such as case citations, were long; and some simply didn't provide enough context for the information to be found again (e.g. "Lord Goldsmith QC, A-G, Philip Sales and Clive Lewis for the Attorney General"). I simply tried to standardise them as I edited. I'm also going to politely disagree and suggest a personal preference for long citations. All the information is then immediately provided when the citation link is clicked and duplication of information when adding references for different pages can be avoided by using Template:Rp. Michael   An  on  13:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Grandiose, I just thought I'd let you know that I've nominated R (Jackson) v Attorney General for Good article status. Michael  An  on  16:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work. Personally I would reconsider the rp format, because I find [3]:[27][12]:504–505 confusing and difficult to read, and distracting as part of a passage, but I admit that that it is an acceptable format. I also find the elision format (which isn't quite consistent, I think some are from me) a bit odd to the eye, things like "ambiguous or obscure. ... It is used," I would have as "ambiguous or obscure... It is used," but I can't find anything in the MOS on that, nor can I find any guidance on whether "Have" to "[h]ave" really needs the square brackets. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I have standardised the use of ellipses to remove any full stops immediately preceding the punctuation (I agree it looks neater but could not immediately find any formal guidelines on the topic) and have removed square brackets where only the first letter of a quoted sentence is altered to comply with the last item in the list at Manual of Style. Michael   An  on  17:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)



Redrose64 has eaten your cookie! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!


 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)