User talk:Technopat/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- moe.RON   Let's talk  01:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style


 * If you have any questions or would like a comment, feel free to let me know. Have fun! -- moe.RON   Let's talk  20:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

lizards
i edited the 5000 species because i got different information from this site http://eduscapes.com/nature/lizard/index2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixiechic97 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC) im sorry about this change i should have check more than one site and the date and more trusted sites im also new to this so yea i will get more information before i change something next time.

do u hav any suggestions of sites to trust such as colleges? where do u get most of ur information. Dixiechic97 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC) dixiechic97

Translations
(The following posting was originally duplicated on my user page, but as of today only appears here --Technopat 22:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

Please. Dear experienced Wikipedians. While I reckon I have made a reasonable effort to check out available FAQs, etc., I have not as yet come across any reference to the copyright situation on translations to be included on article pages (I'm pretty sure that there must be something out there). The reason I'm interested is that I came across an article page for a Spanish music group whose lyrics are pretty central to their appeal and on the corresponding discussion page someone had asked for a translation.

As I wasn't too sure about the legal situation, I started a simple synopsis of the lyrics (on the discussion page corresponding to the album in question) and suggested that it might be in the spirit of Wikipedia to make a concerted effort among us all to try to get an ongoing translation, with people adding nuances to the basic translation as on any other article page.

So my question is the following: Is there any infringement of copyright if a free translation is made of the lyrics of a song? Surely the strict measures made to protect copyright only refer to the original version. Thank you for taking the time to answer this doubt. (And thank you for being on Wikipedia - it's a great project!) Technopat 00:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Technopat: You're right, it is a bit difficult to find the information! Basically, a translated text is a derivative work, and as such subject to the original's copyright as well as the translator's.  Therefore there would be an infringment of the copyright. Translations in general are subject to copyright. The min exception is that a translation made by an author who died more than 70 years will generally be in the public domain, but more recent works remain copyrighted.

You can cite and link to such translations on the web but quotations from the translations are subject to 'fair use' rules. You may use very brief examples, a word or phrase here or there (Such as "The Beatles song, "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" begins with the words "Picture yourself in a boat on a river...") All quotations must be short and essential to the context.

Please note that the WikiProject for albums does intermittently check for lyrics & the such & will remove them as copyright violations, so it's best not to put the lyrics and/or translations therein as well.

I hope this helps, if you need further info, just leave a note on my user talk page. SkierRMH 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (moved from user page) You've probably read Copyrights. I believe many countries do not allow for translations of works without permission. I'm sure doing it for a couple of lines is fine, but also note that Wikipedia should not include original research, which may include self-translated works that are not published elsewhere.

Please also note that discussions should take place only on talk pages, as is the helpme tag. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 00:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. This place can be confusing -- I mean, talk pages are technically discussion pages, but who says that? Xiner (talk, email) 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

im sorry about that recent change im new to this and i should have checked more than one site and the date of the site ill be more careful next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixiechic97 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: translation of lyrics
Thank you all very much for your response. Wikipedia - and its Wikipedians - are great! Technopat 11:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Stevie Wonder
In regards to User talk:Moeron; What happened was that edited the page in a vandal-like manner with this edit, replacing the page with nonsense. then used a program (see WP:POPUPS or WP:SCRIPTS) to rollback that IPs edit to the last version that was correct; in this case, that correction was yours. In short, everything is all good on the Stevie Wonder page again and there is no worries. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! -- moe.RON   Let's talk  23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Forests of the Iberian Peninsula
We seem to have had an ugly edit conflict at Forests of the Iberian Peninsula/Translation. I've done my best to restore any of your edits that I may have accidentally overwritten. My apologies if I missed something, you may want to check. Weird that we should be both working at once on something that has been so neglected. - Jmabel | Talk 01:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism & what to do
Thanks for the note on my talk page. I have sometimes been less tolerant of vandals than policy strictly dictates, but I've noticed that (of course) admins differ as to when a block is warranted. When I check a user's edits, and the last ten or twenty are vandalism, I generally report it, but I'm being more conscious of the chronology of those edits now, and sometimes just post yet another "final warning". Anyway, check out Vandalism, WP:TUSER, as well as the links listed in the welcome message above for all sorts of good info. - Special-T 19:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Respect - The Unity Coalition
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Technopat! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bexample\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 14:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I accept your apologies in advance and I suppose your hyper-sensitivity is due to previous negative experiences, but surely in these times of advanced technology, a bot can distinguish the edit of one single letter from spam or what-have-you. All I did was to change a header to lowercase in accordance with wikipedia header policy. I have now been branded, unjustly, for life as a spammer. --Technopat 14:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You have not been branded as a spammer, this first message is a pure good-faith remark, not a warning. When I see your edit here you indeed did a good-faith edit to change the capitalisation of the header, but also, purely accidental I am sure, added a link to example dot com.  The addition of the latter is reverted, along with all other edits.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  See you around, happy editing!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, stop worrying, there really is no harm done. You really accidentily added a link to example.com, just have a look at the [diff.  This revert does no harm at all.  You were clearly not vandalising, this 'warning' is almost forgotten already.  Counting starts all over, you are at 0 again.  These things happen.  Even us established users do sometimes get warnings, or make mistakes.  I don't even know what shadowbot got blacklisted, and I may get a warning as well in time.  As long as one then follows what the warning says, there is no problem.  If you make some good edits afterwards, the first two warnings say nothing (and shadowbot would only revert you once, except on the links that he is 'angry' about).  So just go back to editing .. see you around, happy editing!  --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] T  C 18:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is possible to put a virus into the mediawiki software, there would be only one place to put it (in your monobook), and only you can edit that. But please let us know when it happens again.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you're fine. There was a monobook virus going around a while ago, but your monobook is empty, and the virus wouldn't have caused you to enter spam links anyway. (The empty box means 'no script'; the warning on top is an attempt to warn people about the virus, because it worked using social engineering methods, and it appears on everyone's monobook.) The main thing to remember is not to add code to your monobook.js unless you trust the source. I hope that helps, and sorry you were worried. --ais523 09:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Do what I can. :)
Hi, Technopat. I'm not actually an admin, so I can't block a user. However, I did revert the vandalism and attached a warning--it's a school account, so it's possible that the same person will be at the same computer tomorrow. If it gets too bad, the admins will forward a report to the school's officials. But thanks for the head-sup. :) Justin Eiler 00:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, but sorry anyway.

 * Hallo, Technopat,

Yes, it seems we have, really:
 * But please check that my latest edition had nothing to do with yours. Mine just substituted the word fourteenth for fifteenth in the Later Life section of M. C. Escher, so restoring the previous writing, which had been vandalized a week earlier.
 * Now about your deletion of the trifle remark about some guy who apparently told something about Mr. Escher, I must say I absolutely agree with you. If somewhere, that trivia item should be placed in the page dedicated to the guy who told it (if he ever did, by the way).

Believe me, I am very sorry for the inconvenience. Kind regards, Zack Holly Venturi 16:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note to me
As far as I'm concerned, you are free to use any of the templates on my user page. I found most of them in the same way you did -- by looking at the user pages of others. I will warn you that since I last made major modifications to it, the expectations for user pages have changed. Some people would disapprove of the way my page appears. I obviously don't care enough about those expectations to make changes, but I felt you should be forewarned. Next, I'm a bit unclear about why you keep making references to the apostrophe. Did I misuse that punctuation mark? Did you misuse it? Either way, it's okay -- we're allowed occasional mistakes. Finally, I must ask you what article or template you were making reference to. When I'm busy here, I edit around 1500 articles a month. I honestly must say I don't recall where I bumped into you. I am curious now, so please let me know where it was. Erechtheus 22:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing up the apostrophe mystery and telling me about the article at which we met. It looks like it is coming along quite nicely. In fact, I think the refimprove template probably isn't necessary at this point if you want to remove it. Happy editing to you. Erechtheus 00:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Jimmy Woode, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blair - Speak to me 11:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

B.B. King in London
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of B.B. King in London, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You may remember posting the following on the Jerry Ragovoy talk page - Greetings, Does anyone know if this is the same person credited as the piano-playing Dr Ragovoy on the B.B. King album B.B. King in London. Have also come across a ref. elsewhere, but can't remember where, here on Wikipedia that the song "Ain't Nobody Home" which also appears on that album, was written by someone called Ragovoy. Thanx for your help.
 * I though it better to reply to you directly. Firstly yes, "Ain't Nobody Home" was definitely penned by Jerry Ragovoy - as Ragovoy's article now states.  It is likely he played piano on the In London album too - certainly All Music Guide quotes his piano playing contribution to the slightly later Best of B. B. King (MCA Records - 1973) album - see .  I hope this helps.


 * Derek R Bullamore 19:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Strawbs has been changed
By the way, if you want to change the name of an article, it's pretty easy to do. Simply click on the "move" button at the top of an article, then type in the new name in the box below and hit submit.

- Xnux  the   Echidna  01:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Riding with the King infobox repair
My pleasure! --Bruce1ee 14:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cassidyjones vandal
As far as I can tell, the vandal hasn't edited since I blocked it. The block was at 18:50 and the last edit was at 18:46. Am I missing something? JoshuaZ 22:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which activity you are referring to as "normal", but if you mean that level of vandalism, then no its a bit more concerted an effort than we generally deal with. JoshuaZ 23:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of When Your Lover Has Gone
A tag has been placed on When Your Lover Has Gone requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kkmurray (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why that happened. The article made claims of notability, although some sources would be nice. JFW | T@lk  22:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanx for feedback. I was actually just saving it before losing it all - and did actually mention it (more or less) in the edit summary - while I went off to look for other Wikipedia articles linked to the composer. Regards, Technopat (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jimjam
A tag has been placed on Jimjam requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Regua (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Contested on article discussion page. Technopat (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Block request
(I'm cross-posting this from my talk page, in case you don't have it watchlisted) Hi Technopat, I'm not an admin, so I can't block anyone, but a block wouldn't be appropriate in this case anyway; they've only edited once in the last month, and twice in the last six months. It's quite possibly a shared IP, so it may not even be the same person who was vandalizing in June (when I left my last warning, which is how I assume you found my name). I'll leave them a new warning, and if this vandalism continues, you can report them to WP:AIV if they vandalize after a recent final warning. But warnings do grow "stale", and we can't block after a warning given in June. Thanks for reverting the vandalism, and if you have any questions on vandalism reverting and warnings and blocking, feel free to ask. --barneca (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Greetings Barneca,
 * Thanx for your prompt reply - and your assumption is correct. Great verb/adjective that: watchlisted. Regards, Technopat (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Technopat

Hank Mobley correction
Thank you for your correction of my quotation marks edit on the Hank Mobley page. I clearly needed to brush up on the subject so I re-read the guidelines and have since found some instances to correct myself. Much appreciated. (Wrightjack (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

North American Bear Attacks article
When I encounter a situation where the references are of an inconsitent style, I use this ; when I encounter a situation where references occur but only as external links or a list at the end but the article lacks in-text citations, I use this.

In the above-references article, I agree that the references need some more work. I have it on my "to-do" list of on-going projects. Best regards.--Hokeman (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hoagy Carmichael
Hi. I'm glad you went back and separated the death details of Hoagy from the Georgie Fame insert. It made it look as though recording the album with Fame caused his death! :) Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 17:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Solid Gold Cadillac
A tag has been placed on Solid Gold Cadillac requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Zginder 2008-04-26T21:33Z (UTC) 21:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Contested with hangon template --Technopat (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter King/Pete King
Hello Technopat; Thanks for pointing out the possible confusion over Peter King/Pete King and for changing my edit back. I was thinking of going back and doing the same thing, as having changed it and then spotted the reference in the article to Pete King the manager of Ronnie's, I realised that I should leave your reference as it is. I'll have a look at the relevant discussion for further details. Also, it's good to see such a detailed article on a great saxophonist. Wholetone (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello again Technopat - Thanks for the message. I was wondering whether, in the absence of a dedicated page for Pete King, he could be referenced by linking him to the Ronnie Scott's Club page, as it might help to distinguish him for those not aware of the Peter/Pete potential confusion. Is that acceptable Wiki practice? What do you think? Wholetone (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Don Ellis
Perhaps my deletion of your comment was rather rude, I apologize. As I mention, though, you deleted the Don Ellis album "Live at Montreux" and replaced it with the Atlantic Family album, which is of extremely small importance in Don's overall discography. He only plays on one song, and is only identifiable for about a minute and a half. If this release is even worthy of mention on Wikipedia (I'm not sure that it is), it should definitely not be in the main discography (since it wasn't a "Don Ellis album"). Maybe there should be a "miscellaneous releases" section, or it could also be mentioned in passing in the biographical area?Mendali (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for the support on a slowly growing page Kelvin Martinez (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Honorific Titles in Popular Music

Some Help!
Not pure crap.Check out the page-links and give me another opinion about the different approach. Or should it be reverted to the first day of it being upload. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Honorific titles in popular music

Is there a possibility to reedit the title perhaps making it

Honorable Titles In Popular Music

(With The Words capitilized. What do you think?) Kelvin Martinez (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Party Album (Alexis Korner)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Party Album (Alexis Korner), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://alexis-korner.net/party.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Party Album (Alexis Korner)
I have nominated The Party Album (Alexis Korner), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/The Party Album (Alexis Korner). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Folks!
I'd just like to thank all the editors who turned up to oppose deletion of the Darwin-Wallace Medal article. This incidence - regardless of the outcome - was literally the last straw in a series of events I had observed recently and which, in my opinion go against the whole spirit of Wikipedia.

I was actually in the middle of writing a note to put here declaring my need to take an enforced break from editing Wikipedia, but this last-minute rally has restored my faith in common sense, the ability of people to be forward-thinking and other things which I won't mention 'cos it might get misinterpreted. Cheers Folks! --Technopat (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Check It Out
Thanks for the support!! Check it Out with any feedback Kelvin Martinez (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Honorific titles in popular music

Glass Onion
My opinion is that:


 * "Glass Onion" is a Beatles song about Beatles' songs.

should be:


 * "Glass Onion" is a Beatles song about Beatles songs.

without the apostrophe. (For example, you would say "I love Beatles songs" or "I love Lennon and McCartney songs"). --Countdown to oblivion (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanx for prompt reply - however your reply has thrown me completely. What little I had clear has now evaporated (it's hot where I am!). Let's make your first example ("I love Beatles songs") singular. I get "I love John's songs". Agreed? Your second example ("I love Lennon and McCartney songs") brings to the fore one of those things-I've-always-meant-to-check-up-on-and-never-get-round-to-doing, viz., does the apostrophe go on Lennon AND on McCartney (as in Lennon's and McCartney's songs) OR just on the McCartney (as in Lennon and McCartney's songs)? Sigh!


 * If we stick a "the" in front (as in the Lennon-McCartney songs) there's no doubt. I would instinctively say "I love the Lennon-McCartney songs." or "I love Lennon and McCartney's songs."


 * Maybe it should read somethin' like: "Glass Onion" is a song written about [the meaning of] songs written by The Beatles.


 * Sorry to drag this out - but when it's clear, it's clear and when it ain't... Regards (and copied & pasted on your talk page), --Technopat (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Saxophonists
Thanks for your comments on my edits. I do know a fair bit about renowned saxophonists and the ones removed from the list are certainly of a non-notable nature. If anyone wishes to create Wikipedia articles on the removed names, then that would be fine by me. Paul210 (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

John Dewey
Wow, that is a major improvement to the intro paragraph! I seriously mean it! Thank you for helping that article, it was such a mess compared to Britannica. In my since of mind, the intro should fully summarize the entire article, and most importantly his include his significance. I think that is done now, thank you! I also left you a note over on Schaffer paragraph. -- penubag  (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a great improvement. :) -- penubag  (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so not only are you cleaning up the John Dewey page, you are also getting all the Dewey publication pages squared away, and cleaning up listings of various spiffy-looking jet aircraft (and the good old Sopwith to boot) and lord knows what all else. What are you bucking for superhuman status, or something?  Thanks for all your great work. Mddietz (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ham-fisted is fine by me. And I like having the separate pages for the books.  With a writer like dewey the individual publications have some real relevance. Mddietz (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded to your last on my talk page.Mddietz (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Technopat (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing signatures
No problem. If you look at the source closely, you'll actually see a rogue <!-- at the end - I don't know how up to speed you are with HTML, but this signifies the start of a comment, so MediaWiki was just ignoring everything else you said afterwards.

How did you put the warning there in the first place - had you partially pasted it from somewhere else? All you need to write is " Richard Dawkins --~ " for the warning template to be generated and filled out. (Or you could go the whole hog and install Twinkle to add vandal warning to your Wikipedia interface.) --McGeddon (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Heya
I noticed you Wikified the Ben E. King's Greatest Hits page before I got the rest of the track times in today. I finished adding the times moments ago; until I get any kind of historical information to add to the page, I'm otherwise considering it complete. Feel free to give it another look-over if you'd like and then I think it's good. =) CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Findley
An article you created has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to challenge this, please see the article and WP:PROD. Thanks, Hndis (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Blocked user
I don't think doing so is necessary; IP addresses usually switch users very frequently, so I may end up blocking an innocent contributor. If he keeps it up we can just protect the page. Thanks for notifying me though! :) Keep up the good work, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  22:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! And if you ever need any help, you're welcome to contact me. :) Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mode of discourse
I resent the way you conduct yourself in the matter of a plain cleanup issue on Talk:Meco. I find your responses condescending. I urge you to both take procedure a bit more seriously and also to show editors with whom you take issue the courtesy of not neglecting their issues with you. __meco (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please just reference the claim you made at Meco. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

3 in a boat
Hi Technopratt! I saw you undid my edit. I left and note on the talk page and look forward to working together with you to make this a great article! Thanks!! 71.191.40.106 (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Sorry! Apologies posted on corresponding pages.--Technopat (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pilger
Hi. Many thanks for your, I'm sure, good-faith edit. I hope you don't mind my feeling, though, that it introduces infelicity & three redundancies: i.e. adding 'journalist' (already there by implication); 'Journalist of Year" (top award by definition); existing New Statesman citation at the end of the sentence with mini profile is the source.

I say many thanks because you've inadvertently drawn my attention to Fear Of Freedom (Fromm) article which, amazingly, misnames the book in both UK & US versions. Shall now attempt to rectify. So you've done Fromm's memory a favour. Such is the wonder of Wiki P!

P.S. Was it, I wonder, the possibly jarring effect of "one of only two to . . ." that provoked you to make the edit? It read alright to me; if so, shall rectify pronto.

P.P.S. Saw Pilger perform last Saturday at Queen Mary College, London. In response to an audience question he, equally amazingly, said he was an anarchist. Comes as news to me. Is this Chomsky's doing, I wonder??

Regards (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. If you feel that way, I'm sure there must be a million others out there who'd react likewise (i.e you being - and I mean it in the nicest possible way - a random sample). Shall endeavour to incorporate the specifics & the additional citation without breaking the flow.

I suspected you might be Down-Under. Am I wrong? Is so, please forgive me.

Regards Wingspeed (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Have reinstated specific mention of JoY award & the ref, at the end of the sentence rather than midway, which I hope meets with your approval.

Sorry now that I opened my big mouth about poss Ozlink. Was just my first intuition, that's all (pat suffix in username, therefore poss Irish ancestry, JP being Australian etc). My younger brother & my ex-wife live there, so maybe my nasal passages were twitching excessively. I realize that by far & away the bulk of Pilger's fans are in fact in North America.

So what's the truth? :) Regards Wingspeed (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

John Pierce
Hey, whatever works. I just redirected it because he didn't establish any notability outside the band, and that's pretty much in line with WP:MUSIC. Being a member of a band doesn't guarantee you instant notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Request for block
Shared IP addresses can have a lot of different users, which is why we allow a lot of warnings before blocking. The IP you mention only has 3 edits in the month of October, so for now we can just keep an eye on him/her/them. In general, we'd very strongly prefer not to have to block people, especially when those blocks can affect other individuals. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Simply messing
Many thanks for the appreciation. Regards Motmit (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good useful stuff going on. Regards Motmit (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again - Tides End town - someone suggested it had something to do with teddy bears! Pooh! Regards Motmit (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously though- Crick was the only biographer to write from a political perspective - in fact he had started the bio as an adjunt to a political analysis before Sonia asked him - hence his own politics are I think relevant. The change you made re Shelden actually reverses the point made in the citation - the "more" is in comparison to Crick. Part of the Bowker section of the Cambridge book will come up under Google. Regards Motmit (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I think that Cambridge article is worth a read - I had not considered before how much biographers create people in their own image - so with a choice of bio's its probably worth highlighting. But I do welcome a second opinion. Re Teddies - some vandal had attributed Teddington's name to Teddy bears, and my last edit was about Poohsticks. Things sometimes do seem to follow on. Like earlier I had just dealt with an article covered with citation splats where potential refs were directly on the links when I came upon a brand new article with perfectly good refs which had been splatted. Did the revert and then watched a monumental bust up across talk pages! Sorry. BTW I have just created Richard Rees just to get him going. Regards Motmit (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SIBIS
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article SIBIS, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bongo matic  12:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Contested - see its talk page.--Technopat (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Admiral Woodland sets sail
Well, that's very flattering. All I've done, really, is peck away at words that probably don't need to be there, although others may disagree. I've never thought of becoming an administrator, but the idea of swaggering about in an admiral's hat could never fail but appeal. What does it mean? What does it involve? I don't really want to sit in judgment on other peeople's work, beyond what I've done, but if I can help then I'd like to. Thanks again. Les woodland (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)les woodland

A comment on tags
In my opinion it's a bit uncivil to criticize an editor who has taken the time to read your article and added the appropriate tags to areas they deem need improvement. This is standard operating procedure, although I undetrstand getting "tagged" isn't always pleasant. But as soon as the necessary improvements are made the tags are generally removed, or if an editor disputes the tag they can remove it straight off. But an editor reading a new submission has no way of knowing whether the work is complete or under construction, unless you mark it as such. The reason for citations are so other editors can verify the content of articles, and so readers can establish the sources. As it turns out, the content in that article does not, in my opinion, reflect the content in the cited source. And criticizing me for putting a tag on your article or saying I should have tagged it with an inline citation instead of a whole section doesn't encourage me to want to contribute by fixing or adding to your submission. Respectfully, ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied:--Technopat (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dawkins publications
Hi techno, no problem mate! It's still some way from being a complete list but I'll try to keep ticking away on it and add in listings whenever I have a chance. Don't hesitate if you're unsure about anything to ask; I'll do my best to help. AC+79 3888 (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: 4.255.51.233
It looks like we're all caught up now. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why he or she is not blocked for vandalism. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 17:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Shel Talmy
Many thanks for your work. Shel e-mailed me yesterday; sadly not to say well done, but rather to accuse me of something I definitely did not do. Anyhow, if we have the great man on our side - almost - we stand a small chance of turning fancruft / adolation / IP address generated POV /  bollocks / into an article approaching the truth. I have followed your lead with some extended efforts in the 'Discography' section. However, as you are aware, overall it needs considerable editing to get it in to the realms of reality. We need some more references to beat off the IP generated claptrap. Keep beavering away !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dubois
Hey man, that sounds like an odd predicament. I remember I sometimes couldn't revert certain vandals in this kind of scenario: 1) they vandalise in the first edit 2) they remove it 3) I revert but then it doesn't show because the page is exactly the same as it was before no. 1). Are you on IRC? Perhaps ask on there? Or I can ask someone on there if you don't use it? Take care. Scarian Call me Pat!  22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. I got Tiptoety to look at the problem, he's left you a question on my talk (which might make things confusing, so I would recommend replying on his talk ;-). Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Kopp
It clearly needs a few citation tags - where is ChildofMidnight when you need him/her. I have not had a chance to look into Kopp yet, so I can't comment, but I proffered the quote in case you wanted to incorporate it. Regards Motmit (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User:128.122.253.212
One edit does not a block deserve. Given the fact that it's a completely different article, I'm suspecting it's more of a "NYU is full of idiots" rather than a single one from a while ago. Warn him and it should be fine. He seems to have stopped anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, look, they were days ago. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a computer in a library or something.  There's no point to doing blocks like that until it gets way out of control.  Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if we have a few users who log in at that address once in a while. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

PM
Damn you're fast. I was looking up the same... - Jmabel | Talk 17:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Up-and-coming!
Actually I had my eye on that comment for some time and I was quite surprised you had let it go! Regards Motmit (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And a good new year to you too. I must admit to a bit of fatigue after doing CUFA so thanks for sorting out odds and ends. I have left some old stuff in there for the time being as I don't like being too bold! Good work keeping an eye on the Bull at Barnes too - have spent many a good evening there with the late great Humph. RegardsMotmit (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Criterion
I have a book with a fair portion of Eliot's farewell commentary and he used The Criterion so it looks as if you got it the second time. Thank you for starting the article. I had considered it once but I'm not a great writer so I mainly stick to adding to, editing and supplying citations to articles. WikiParker (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Nippy Noya
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Nippy Noya, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Nippy Noya seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Nippy Noya, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

plaquerama
Copied and impertinently pasted: Sorry! Meant to write English Heritage but my politically correct subconcious got the better of me. The main criteria that most appeals to me re. this issue is, of course, the following: "In order to be eligible for an English Heritage blue plaque, a figure must have been dead for twenty years or have passed the centenary of their birth." --Technopat (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Politically correct" and "subconscious", ugh and ugh respectively. Can we perhaps call the mostly united queendom "Blighty"? Or anything other than "the Youkay", please. "English Heritage" is a daft name and one horribly reminiscent of some far-right US "think tank"; I prefer the old Ministry of Works.

That criterion appeals to me too. I think it's a little harsh, but would happily limit not just this list but also qualification for a biographical article to people who have been dead for ten years or be over sixty years old; this would handily weed out the ephemeral and the self- or buddy-promoting.

But that's just fantasy talk. Any attempt to rule out participants in "reality" TV shows, members of "boy bands", people who kick balls around for a living, Playboy "playmates", etc would be met with (a) howls of protest, and, more significantly, (b) failure. (And I suppose that even I would want to let in people like Obama and Blair. No offence meant to Nippy Noya, who I think qualifies on the strength of his name alone.) More specifically, any attempt to apply the Ministry of Works criterion alone for notability of place of residence/birth/death/work would fail too. How about something like this (for Blighty):

Hoary (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The person must have their own article (not merely a redirect); AND
 * 2) The period of residence (etc) (and degree of ignorance) is clearly specified (not "lived in Teddington" but "lived in Teddington from 1753 or earlier until 1765 or later"); AND
 * 3) At least one of the following criteria must be met (and documented):
 * 4) There is a Ministry of Works blue plaque;
 * 5) There is a plaque affixed by a charity or disinterested and noncommercial organization known for affixing plaques;
 * 6) There is a tomb, tombstone, or equivalent;
 * 7) The location of residence, birth, death, work, etc, is described (and not merely mentioned) in a biographical work on the person.


 * Replying here as per your talk page. Thanks for above comments, Hoary. On the face of it, your suggestion looks good - especially as a consensus-building strategy - but on reading the small print (""at least one of the following criteria") I find myself back where I started. OK, so it rules out redlinks and fanzines/blogs.


 * I reckon you might just be a tiny bit too pessimistic in considering that "it's fantasy talk". It's virtually impossible to add anything to certain articles, such as Michael Jackson, as the 24-hr watchdogs there have an almost pathological in rejecting anything that smacks of hype, etc. I'd like to think that my attitude - as an amateur Wikipedia inclusionist - is far more relaxed. That said, Wikipedia already gets a lot of stick for being too tolerant and not harsh/strict enough, and there are, unfortunately, moves afoot to do something about that, and which IMHO go against the whole spirit of this great project - now you're getting me pessimistic. But I digress.


 * The fact that all those good folk you mention above - with their own Wikipedia articles - live in Teddington (for the sake of argument) is not, in itself, notable. They obviously have to live somewhere and it could possibly be referenced and mentioned on their own article pages as it might be of interest to their fans and to property owners wishing to inflate the value of their neighbourhood, but it really isn't encyclopedic enough to include on a list occupying valuable space at the Teddington article. How's 'bout meeting halfway - if I accept your criteria, will you accept my List of notable residents in Teddington, England? (pending consensus at the Teddington discussion page). Regards, --Technopat (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in a sunny and agreeable mood, but hesitate to agree because I don't know what I'm being asked to agree with, and indeed suspect that it's something I'd disagree with very strongly. I'm not at all happy with lists in general, and a list such as this one sounds potentially ghastly. First, "Teddington, England" should surely be rephrased (as the most obviously necessary disambiguation is with another place in England); but that little matter aside, do you really think that it would be good to invite lists such as this for Hampton Wick, Petersham, Whitton, Hampton Hill, Isleworth, etc; each of course with its soap opera character actors, garage band drummers, etc etc? Clearly a place such as London (however tightly defined) or even Kensington will have too many genuine notables for inclusion, but that's what categories are for; meanwhile, "Category:Residents of Teddington" would be rather absurd, while -- thanks to decades of obfuscation (whereby for example the non-existent "Middlesex" continues to be used in postal addresses) -- no superset of Teddington is immediately obvious for a category.

Keira Knightley [did I get that right?] is a stunningly good-looking female (a good actor too), and speaking as a heterosexual male chauvinist pig I like to think that at some time she and I shared a shopping aisle at Tesco; it's fantasy and self-flattery such as this that I think fuels these lists. If she has commented on Teddington, or if some intelligent source has commented intelligently (so you see I avoid Hello, the Daily Mail, etc) on her Teddingtonitudinousness, then I'd say she'd be a welcome addition to an Eastbournish treatment of residents; so you see I've nothing against yoof "per se". -- Hoary (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings Hoary - if anyone asks, it was yer claim to Teddingtonitudinousness what done it. I hereby withdraw my erstwhile objections to the inclusion of notable residents, shoplifters or passersby in the Teddington, Hampton Wick, etc. articles. I realise that it's not much of an argument for meeting Wikipedia notability requirements, but in deference to my attempts to raise the standards of this joint, please agree with me that they must be suitably referenced.--Technopat (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC) PS. Am now going to spend the rest of the afternoon figuring out how to make one of those little templates for my talk page - something along the lines of "This user is NOT a notable resident of Teddington, Middlesex "


 * Oh yes yes, they should all be referenced.


 * By the last, are you referring to the little note that says "Bah humbug" to anyone considering giving me some wiki-lurv chainspam? I had no idea of how to do that myself till a week or so ago, but the secret is to turn this link blue. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hank Mobley album chronology
Hi Technopat - I've worked on the Hank Mobley albums and corrected his discography using the jazz discography project as a guide. Some albums were released many years after the recording date but I've listed them chronologically in the infoboxes DISEman (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Inside the myth
Thanks for the note. I understand what you are trying to do, but I fear you may have opened the door for every 5th form essayist, teenage discontent, naive undergraduate, fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist - not only in England but in a remote continent where they understand as much about the English social system as my backside does about blackberry picking - to pile in assorted drivel. What really does some mid-west baptist minister have to contribute? I think it is best for the people who actually knew him to speak for (or against) him. The pro-semitic-POV IP probably realised there was no case to answer. Anyway lets see what happens Regards Motmit (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may like to review the politics section - an earlier attempt to address some of these issues and long in need of an overhaul anyway - as it looks as if there is now some duplication. Regards Motmit (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Francist
Since another editor has reverted me twice I will not press the matter further (as more important changes stand). From my reading I am of the impression that "Francist" is the more common English term, though I know about the problematic regarding the pronunciation of "c". 10:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Esssays etc
Many thanks for your checks and reviews on the various essays etc. There is still quite a long way to go. Once complete the section of the main article can be rewritten properly. Then we can review the lead - the separate genres are pretty crucial elements. Meanwhile we can leave someone who does not accept consensus on vandal patrol. Its a long game:) Regards Motmit (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Am following your lead in this - impressively high batting average you're chalking up. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Whale - you may note I have had words. Regards Motmit (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

George Orwell edits
Hello Thanks for posting on my talk. There are a few issues at work here: If you have further concerns or feedback of any kind, please post on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Formerly, there were the articles Essays of George Orwell and List of George Orwell publications. As you can see, these are essentially overlapping, redundant articles, so it made sense to me to merge their content (technically speaking, I didn't move either.)
 * 2) In terms of naming, I decided that since the main category for these articles is Category:Bibliographies by author, it makes sense for this merged content to be entitled "George Orwell bibliography." As you can see in that category, there is a wide discrepancy of how these are named and even if there is some standard, it is presently not followed.
 * 3) Your concern is that the new article is thematic rather than chronological, but it is actually both (as well as alphabetical), as all of the publications are listed in a sortable table. This serves the function of having a thematic list of publications, an alphabetical one, and a chronological one as well, without having multiple articles of virtually identical content. If you want a thematic bibliography, you can read it as written, and if you want either of the other two options, you can simply click on an arrow in the table (note that it is already arranged alphabetically.)
 * Consensus I'm always happy to respond. Let me say one thing that I don't "get" about your last message: you keep on talking about consensus as though it should have been reached - which is fine and well, but it still can be reached. If you think that something is problematic, you can just search for consensus now and change anything I've done. If something is particularly egregious, go for it yourself. I would ask, of course, that you wait until I'm done with this article - which is probably 90% done - but regardless, you can reach any consensus to change anything I've done and I'll be happy to weigh in myself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks The approval and input of my peers is appreciated; feel free to let me know what you think in the future. In terms of George Orwell editing, I'd like to see the main article, bibliography, Animal Farm, and Nineteen Eighty-Four (and possibly Homage to Catalonia) be featured or good articles. This would make a George Orwell featured topic. Otherwise, I have been putting the final touches on Everything That Happens Will Happen Today to make it featured and a million housekeeping edits (see my contributions from my signature if you're really interested.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir John
Thanks for the wikilinking on the page and, indeed, the creation of the Hispanist article, nice addition.--Alf melmac 19:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War
Thanks for the apology, but it was not really necessary. Although we disagreed, you weren't in any way discourteous. As far as missing the quote, could have made it more apparent with a inline citation. Cheers. Mamalujo (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Joe "Tricky Sam" Nanton

 * Have added minor edits and revisions - see what you think.

--Ralflott (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Greetings... and request
What edits of this IP are vandalism? For example, the image description for File:BobbyBland1996.jpg says it was taken in 1996. The IP appears to have merely corrected the year in the infobox caption. --Geniac (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When I make a mistake like this, I like to apologize just by reverting my own edit with an edit summary of something like "oops, that wasn't vandalism, sorry". --Geniac (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Will do.--Technopat (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

George Orwell
For some reason or another, I did not leave the George Orwell page as I intended. I meant to bring together the two passages about his views on anti-Semitism and Zionism, but merely deleted without adding. Thank you for drawing this to my attention.

I hope you approve of the edit I am making now. My reasons for this edit are (1) The clumsiness of the direct quotations (2) The length of the article. (3) The straw-man argument referring to unidentified persons who accuse Orwell of anti-Semitism. Marshall46 (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edit improves the passage. I am re-reading Down and Out in Paris and London and, a propos this discussion, he refers to Jews in terms that today would be regarded as anti-Semitic.  I read these as references to the nationality of the persons so-described, equivalent to his references to Russians and Hungarians, combined with an absence of the sensitivity to language that developed after the war and a residue of the anti-Semitism of his class.  However, his 1945 essay makes it clear that he was not an anti-Semite in any meaningful sense and, as far as the article is concerned, I am unaware of any serious writer who accuses him of such.  Marshall46 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jazz
Please adhere to the standard for jazz musicians as sideman:

With Artist
 * Album (Year)

Good work Cosprings (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Design for All
Hi Technopat, I saw your corrections on the lines about the book "Designs for All" in Design for All article. I agree that the links were irrelevant, but I had to correct the credits. The actual credits of the book in both the printed and on-line version are:

Publisher: Optimastudio Editors: Rosario Hurtado and Roberto Feo

Ceapat and the spanish Ministry of Social Affairs are sponsors-contributors to the project but they did not published nor edited the book as the credits and the ISBN shows.

Best regardsSergio1013 (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of category
Hello What I am doing at present is populating categories Country-related lists and State-related lists, which may be a bit of a backwater but they do suffer from benign neglect. As I do this, I make other edits where I find an article is mis-categorized, as in the case of Prime Minister of Spain. This article does contain a section with an extract from List of Prime Ministers of Spain but I can't agree it is a list, where another full list exists. If List of Prime Ministers of Spain hadn't existed I would have desisted from this edit, as it does I would have thought it to have been a rather obvious consensual one. I dont have any problem with your opinion, but I won't be adding the category Spain-related lists to the article. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)).

Best selling music artist
I was wondering if you could bring you input onto this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists#elvis_and_beatles_sales_are_inflated_too. One editor changed record sales for one artist and didnt do it for others that are in the same boat as he. Its leading to harsh debates. Can you please lend a hand to what you believe? ITalkTheTruth (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Great work!
Thanks! It's great to know that someone appreciates the articles. There's still a lot of work to be done, though, and with WP:JAZZ as "active" as it is, I think it'll be a while before I'm finished with the lists :) Jafeluv (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bill Johnson
No worries. You fixed it so no harm done. We've all made edits we have to take back. I certainly have. :-)Singingdaisies (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ain't No Sunshine
I also posted this on Radiopathy's page, but I wanted to make sure you both saw it. Both of you are at WP:3RR on this one, so the best thing to do is to take it to the article's talk page so that other editors can also help determine consensus. It seems trivial to me (and also seems unsourced, since it's not mentioned in the accompanying reference), but if consensus on the talk page is to include it, I'd have no problem with that. Dayewalker (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just want to second this comment. Please stop edit warring on the page and discuss the issue.  Any further reverts will likely lead to a block. Shell   babelfish 21:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if the note was too short to make sense; I was actually just reiterating what Dayewalker said just above. The problem is the repeated use of undo to remove Radiopathy's edits - this is called edit warring and is strongly discouraged.  Instead, its best to leave the article be and talk out the problem on the discussion page, even if that means the article is "wrong" for a bit while things get worked out.  It looks like there's another editor now (Dayewalker) who agrees with your edits and that's a good start on developing a consensus. Shell   babelfish 22:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've started a conversation on the article's talk page in hopes of getting a better discussion going on this topic. It's still seems trivial, weird, and unsourced to me, but it's always best to get more eyes on a discussion.


 * As a bit of advice (which I would offer to both parties, if RP hadn't retired), when you have a discussion on content, try and keep the discussion on the article's talk page. That way, other people can get involved. This is especially important when you've reached an impasse with an editor, take it back to the source to get more opinions. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I was under the impression that the "living people" was over-ruling, and under other circumstances would just have stuck a fact tag on it. --Technopat (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed
It should've occured to me this would look a bit weird to you!

I've marked you as having autoreviewer permissions - this is a pretty specialised user flag, but basically what it means is that your newly created pages get automatically marked as good and don't show up as needing human examination on Special:Newpages. Don't worry - it won't require you to do anything. ;-)

Please do let me know if you've any questions... Shimgray | talk | 18:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer your question, you have done nothing wrong. I screwed up :-)
 * It seems I set the wrong permission ("autoconfirmed", not "autoreviewer") on your account, and so the automatically-mark-as-patrolled thing didn't work. It's corrected now, and so any page you create won't now need to be marked as patrolled. Do let me know if you notice it again, though.
 * On the second point, well, you're right that nominally people shouldn't flag articles they create. In this case, though, I don't think anyone will be concerned - you were meant to be exempt by that point anyway! Shimgray | talk | 18:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Both new requests done - sorry, I've been a bit itinerant these last few days. 50 new articles, no deletions, seems a pretty good threshold to work from. Shimgray | talk | 21:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem if you do note more - I just can't promise to respond quickly :-) Shimgray | talk | 22:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Contributions by Cleobolus
Thanks for your note. I've Wikified his article on Li Luo Neng, but I see he has created a few other articles that need a lot of work. I will try and improve those as well, as I believe his contributions are worth keeping, but leave a lot to be desired in the "form" department... Bruno 22:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. It'll take a few days get to the other three articles.  The material is actually worth saving.  If they weren't worth saving, the actual writing style he used is bad enough that I can understand why another editor wanted to get rid of them.  But Cleobolus has actually supplied juuuust enough info to make them worth researching to save them.  Bruno  22:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Jazz at the Philharmonic and Norman Granz.
Hello Technopat. Thank you for your answer on the Wikipedia Jazz at the Philharmonic site. I have studied Jazz at the Philharmonic, and Norman Granz for 40 years, and I have presented the wonderful JATP jam session music, many times, on Radio Denmark and Radio Sweden. I arranged, in Denmark, in 2006, together with The Institute of Jazz Studies (Dan Morgenstern and Tad Hershorn), and a danish jazz friend, the first Exhibition in the world about Norman Granz, Jazz at the Philharmonic, and the famous painter David Stone Martin, who did many very fine covers for Norman Granz's record labels. The Exhibition was based on my collection: A collection of very rare records, concert programs, DSM covers, posters, adverts, autographs, original art work, unissued JATP recordings, films, photos, magazines, books and other memorabilia. We issued a very fine Exhibition Catalogue (text in English and Danish). There are extensive articles by me a.o., in the Exhibition Catalogue, about Jazz at the Philharmonic, Norman Granz, and David Stone Martin. As one of the leading experts on Jazz at the Philharmonic, I have researched on the JATP tours and JATP recordings.

Best, Niels Ervill.

RE: Ahmad Jamal
Hi. Sorry it took me a few minutes to post to the talk page. I was distracted. Anyhow, the records that we received a copy of were the most verification we could possibly need to confirm that this is correct. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks & replied on user talk page,--Technopat (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We have received copies of records indicating that the "born as" name is incorrect. Given that you do not have access to the records that I have access to, you're welcome to contact another OTRS volunteer if you wish to verify the information I've posted.  I tend to rely more on vital records than other potential sources. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are these records confidential? If they are not, please make them available, so as to correct the errors of jazz researchers. Also, what is your position that Ahmad Jamal's name change of February 18, 1952, accompanied by his wife's name change, and witnessed by the bassist in his trio, Eddie Calhoun?  Are you claiming that it: (a) never existed; (b) was legally unnecessary, because he was already legally named Ahmad Jamal; (c) is genuine, but overridden by these other "records"; or (d) what?-RLCampbell (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello Technopat. Sure you can have rollback. I'd just ask that you read WP:ROLLBACK, and when rolling back make sure you revert to a good version. You'll soon get the hang of it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Greetings TP and thanks for the note. Sounds a good idea. Good to see you are still having fun? - Regards Motmit (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer
That sounds goods, thanks for helping, I wouldn't know how to do it otherwise. Cosprings (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Done! Shimgray | talk | 16:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer (2)
Hi Technopat,

Thanks for the suggestion, it sounds like a good idea, but I note that the guidelines suggest 75 articles and I'm a bit shy of that (54 disregarding redirects to date). Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer (3)
Hi Pat

That sounds like a good idea, and thank you for suggesting it and offering to put me forward. Johnlp (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Bongo  matic  06:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)



Clifford Davis
Hi there, yes - he released two singles under his own name in 1969-70, singing and playing guitar on both. He had been in bands prior to that but I don't know enough about that to add it to the article yet. Davis is quite a mysterious guy. I'll take the blame for the idea that he was a record producer - it was I who initially put that in the article! But he generally did not produce records, only performing that role rarely. If you can think of a decent term for "music artist manager", then that might be an acceptable disambiguation. I couldn't really think of a good one, and he was probably better known as a manager than a musician, although he was both. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied.-Technopat (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied at the article page, but yes, that sounds fine. I did suspect that Peter Green and co might chuckle a bit at Davis being described as a musician since he wasn't terribly accomplished. Some might say he wasn't a particularly good manager either! Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the version I heard also. Have added category and am going for move (after all this fun it'll probably be rejected anyway, so we'll be back at...)Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahah... mind you, if I had to manage a band, I wouldn't have chosen the bed-hopping, multi-substance-abusing, cult-joining Fleetwood Mac! Rather him than me... And if it's rejected, we'll crack it some other way. Cheers :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Please block
Thank you for the message you left on my talk page. After reviewing the contributions of and warnings issued to, I cannot block the IP at this time because it has not been sufficiently warned. However if the IP ignores its current warning, is issued a properly escalated level 3 and level 4 warning, and still continues to vandalize, it may be reported to WP:AIV. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War
What I'm saying is that in comparison to Ernest Hemingway; George Orwell and Robert Capa, Martha is a nobody and should not be in the same line as the other three because they are more important people. --Actoreng1 (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

re:Speedy deletion
Hello Technopat. I re-tagged the article when it contained only the date of birth and unknown date of death. Later I noticed that the page creator added nonsense remark about subject's death in 2011 (?). However, I apply the db-nonsense tag mainly to absolutely incomprehensible articles, as the template contains this text: ''...consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material, hoaxes, etc.'' In this case, the db-vandalism would be useful as well. Sorry for the confusion. Have a nice day. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tawny owl
It is on the main page today, thus heavy vandalism is expected. I'll see what I can do with semi-protection - it is rarely applied to such cases. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

CSD Tagging
Hi, hope you don't mind but I've removed the speedy you put on Story.. nonsense is really for complete gibberish, not for probably not really notable bands and musicians.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and wasn't the right tag for Bob Schollum either - that was a personal attack, and the right thing to do was to blank it (so the attack is no longer visible) and tag it db-atk or db-g10, which puts it in a high-priority queue for admin attention and generates a suitably fierce warning for you to copy to the attacker's talk page. If you are going to do New Page Patrol - which is a good and useful thing to do and needs all the eyes it can get - it is worth reading WP:CSD carefully; there is also good advice for speedy taggers from an experienced admin at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Greetings JohnCD: Thanks for those links. Had no idea that blanking (and tagging) was the thing to do - it's what I would have done instinctively but thought that it was a no-no. As I mentioned to WereSpielChequers, I was just using the nonsense tag as a catch-all to get the attention of admins. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Technopat! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 6 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 ensure 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) 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Paul Harris (musician) -
 * 2) Gary Taylor (singer/songwriter) -
 * 3) Roy McCurdy -
 * 4) Charly Antolini -
 * 5) Bob Hall (boogie-woogie pianist) -
 * 6) Bruce Lynch -


 * Four done - two to go...--Technopat (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All done.--Technopat (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Rowdy ruff boys from power puff girls speedy declined
You tagged Rowdy ruff boys from power puff girls with db-hoax, but a very quick google shows that this is real, although the article is poorly written. Please be careful with hoax tags. Few hoaxes are so blatant as to deserve speedy deletion. My personal rule of thumb is that if you have to check Google to be sure its a hoax it isn't blatant enough to speedy. And my favorite blatant hoax was the one about someone whose birth date showed him to be 16, but who was stated to have climbed the Matterhorn at 25. No need to check that one. DES (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be precise with speedy delete tags. They may get only two sets of eyes, so yours must be keen. DES (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice, but as you can see from the red above, another admin seemed to agree with my criterion. Re. the example of your "favorite blatant hoax", it might have been a simple typo.--Technopat (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

twit
Apologies for de'twit'ting your entry. Your rephrasing was clear and communicative. Cheers. Spanglej (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL!
Hey, no prob. :) It's a bug in the software.  We both see it at the same time, I delete it and you inadvertently recreate it when you try to tag it as a speedy.  No worries.  This'll make you feel better:

 PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

"Need Your Love So Bad"
I have been researching “Need Your Love So Bad” (Fleetwood Mac et al). The song writing credit has me going round in circles. Some sources cite Little Willie John, some his brother (?) Mertis John Jr., and yet others name both of them. This might not be a reliable source but …. I am asking a few Wikipedians, but have you any thoughts, before I go completely insane. No comments on that latter point please ! Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake ...and apology
technopat. youre wrong. victor wooten was 2 when he started, not 3. http://www.victorwooten.com/bio.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.253.223 (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry - have reverted.--Technopat (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers


Enjoy one for your good work. Motmit (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again - have another one.Motmit (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Attack pages
Hi. Thanks for tagging Chris dragon and Sam appleyard just now, but there was a better tag to use. db-nonsense is only for things like "'6835&5<gtkg'u#599" and "yaaaaayyyyy LOLLLL!!!!". In these cases there was a discernible meaning, and it was a personal attack. The right thing to do in that case is to blank the whole content and tag it db-attack (or db-atk), which gets the attack off the screen so the attacker can't giggle over it or show it to his friends, puts it in a high-priority queue for admin attention, and generates a suitably fierce warning message for you to copy to the attacker's talk page. Keep up the good work! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Greetings JohnCD. Thanks!--Technopat (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Monument aux morts (Oise)
A tag has been added to my posting above which talks of "wikifying" and asks whether it is original research This posting continued those on the monument aux morts of the western and eastern Somme and a fourth posting is planned covering the Aisne. This will then have covered the whole of the Picardy region. I have carefully researched what I have written and in the case of the western Somme have visited and photographed all the monuments about which I have written. I will be visiting France several times in the coming months to photograph the remaining monuments described so that there will be a comprehensive survey of the monument aux morts of Picardy which those who have an interest in the subject can use to possible draw comparisons with the war memorials of England. The latest posting uses the same format as used for the Wiki postings on the Monument aux morts (Western Somme) and the Monument aux morts (Eastern Somme) and I thought these followed an acceptable Wikipedia format. Is it possible for the tag to be removed? Many thanks Weglinde (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Beerage lede
Hi,

Thanks for your work on this. I would note that WP:LEDE suggests that the lede should only summarise that which is otherwise available in the article, which suggests that the origin of the word should be covered in the article body as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Lay on, Macduff." (Not 'Lede on...') The Project Gutenberg eText of Macbeth by Bill Shakespeare, Act 5 scene 8 --Technopat (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At this rate you are gonna need another crate - though it "provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance" Ibid Act 2, scene 1! Best Motmit (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure- perhaps somewhere that is "leafy green and highly desirable" and not "known for very poor service and a very rude manager." Motmit (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly too many up stream have turned into expensive restauarnts like Beetle and Wedge. Hiking boots or splash-tops don't get a warm welcome and it tends to be lager or lager. Motmit (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Monument aux morts (Oise)
Not quite sure if I should be putting this on my "User Talk" or yours.

I have now put some references at the end of the article and done some more tweaking.

Whilst I have already taken up much of your time I would be grateful if you could just have a quick look and let me know if you can see an improvement.

I shall keep all your points in mind when it comes to putting the Aisne section on.

Thanks again for your help and interest.

Weglinde (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Down Teddington way
Greetings. Yes. You might realize that you (and Sooty) have been zipping across my radar screen all evening - distracting me from an interesting exercise on Boat Race umpires - so yes I am picking these up. Hope you enjoyed the murder mystery. KUTGW Rgds Motmit (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcoming new users
Sure thing! Deb (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Christie Harris Illustrated Children’s Literature Prize
Hi, thanks for pointing out that Christie Harris Illustrated Children’s Literature Prize should be wikified. Can you give me some idea what would help?

The note says "add internal links" or "improve layout." I checked every single finalist and winner, and only one has a Wiki page, which I linked to. The only other internal link I could think of to add was to the parent organization, BC Book Prizes.

So perhaps you think it needs better layout -- what do you have in mind?

Thank you, -Jonah Jonah22 (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Greetings Jonah. Thanks for you note. I have posted a welcome on your talk page with some recommendations. It might seem a lot, but you'll get the hang of it. And there's always someone out there to help out. I did a bit of work on the layout, wikifying the chronology. I'm afraid that if none of the finalists - or winners, for that matter - have their own links here, it might be necessary to remove them as per notability criteria, unless they are notable enough to get their own article page. I can't stop now to check the page out further, but will try to get round to it later today. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim Crooks
I notice that you have changed Tim Crooks from 7 HRR wins to 4. The 1983 Queen Mother is one that you seem to have omitted. I'll do some more checking when I get the chance. David Biddulph (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Watusiofthecowpeople
Points noted.. I have changed and removed what might be considered vandalism and shameless links to relevant links and information that do not hold promotional material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watusiofthecowpeople (talk • contribs) 15:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied - and pasted welcome template.--Technopat (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Valley Entertainment Monthly
This is 99.156.68.203, coming from a new IP address. Thanks for helping out. I hate to edit war or ratchet up the warnings, but I don't know what options are left--I think I've been pretty thorough in explaining the situation and guidelines, but sometimes that doesn't matter.... 99.170.155.98 (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied - there's more folks involved now to take the heat off. You've used just about every argument in the book... Amazing! I take my hat off to you. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice of you to say; although he professes to understand, he continues to add unsourced anecdotal material about non-notable staff and events--it's a single-purpose account, and I think eventually the article will get a deletion nomination, or the editor will earn a block, or both. And yes, every time my computer has a !@*%# glitch, I resume with a new IP. If nothing else, it maintains the appearance of mysterious mobility.... 99.170.153.66 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Technopat, could you help me to add some pictures of the publication and would that also serve to help athenticate it? Also, I've noted your comments here and if there is anything I should do to further legitimize the article, I would appreciate any help. I am still feeling lost as to what I can do to help everyone understand that just because an older, out of print publication is not mentioned promimently on the net, it does not mean it was without merit or "notibility." I have added mentions in at least three publications, one a nationally syndicated glossy mag available in every state. Not sure what it takes to get this done, but if you read the article, it would be difficult to argue it is without merit or notibility. Who decides this stuff anyway? Anyone who jumps in with an admin account? Seems there is potential for abuse and if Wikipedia's goal is to "gather all human information in one place online" then why would a small newspaper be any less notible than one owned by Rupert Murdock? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Scratch all that previous stuff about pictures, Technopat. I just read that it takes several days and some editing to be "autoconfirmed," so I can just wait it out. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Bo Carter
http://www.target.com/Please-Warm-My-Weiner-Hokum/dp/B002SPQXWE He sang a lot dirtier than that too. Now just mind your manners or I'll be wanting to add "Please Let Me Roll Your Lemon". The best blues is often dirty. Love it! Gandydancer (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nice reply. Seems you do a lot of good work here at wikipedia.  Carry on! Gandydancer (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Tommy2010 08:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) sorry for that confusion. :) Tommy2010 08:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Josie Davis
No problem. It already appears on IMDb.com anyways. Dgarq (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved here to refect chronological order (30 April 2010)
Hi technopat, you placed an " unhelpful " marker on my message page, mayhap ? ... it says that something i edited has been reverted ... let me know which of my edits was reverted please ...thanks .. i also started the page for the seed cathedral yesterday.. maybe it was that one ? i see that someone added great sources and photos ..... but my article was "unhelpful" ? every word I wrote remains exactly as I wrote them ! i started a great page .... whatzadeal ? must be a different edit, but I canna see which ! cheers User talk:Jesuitsally