User talk:Trampikey/Archive 9

novels
I was wondering, do you think we should do a novel section in the pauline article? We can describe it in an OOU way, then remove it from the 'background' section of the storylines. This will reduce the word count a bit. I'm finding it hard to reduce now, and it has already been butchered beyond recognition. Gungadin 00:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Leave it up to me, I can see you're stressed with the bloody article, so I'll do it :) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Gungadin 00:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW good luck for any exams you have this week.Gungadin 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I should be asleep but I drank coffee, so I can't, lol. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Me either, my friend dragged me to an after hours club called Fire in Vauxhall at about 3am yesterday. I was drinking red bull to stay awake and now I cant sleep. I really like what you did with the article. such a good idea putting that in the lead, wish i'd thought of that. Gungadin 00:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just tried to cut some down by using connectives and cutting out some bits that don't really need to be there, but we're scraping the bottom of the barrell for stuff we can remove now... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I know, it's puny in comparrison. We're on about 23000 words by my calculation. wait and see what she says, probably not good enough seeing as it's not the magic 1000, lol Gungadin 00:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, I've removed all I think I can, lets see what Elonka says about it now! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 01:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

'sourced' information
Thanks for your well-intentioned message. I appreciate your concern. Sourced information need to actually be verifiable. Rumour is not verifiable no matter how it tries to present itself. Fact is verifiable as there is evidence to back it up and not rumour. I wonder where the rumour started? The person supposedly responsible has not provided any verifiable factual information. Spreading malicious libellous rumour by any means is legally considered slander. I doubt wikipedia, given its clear rules on the need to be accurate about living persons, would wish to be considered connected with spreading slander. I ask you to think about this. If somebody were to publish a document rumouring something completely false about you and then publish it on wikipedia then claiming it was verified would you tolerate such a matter? I tend to think not. I would bring your attention to the case of Tom Cruise that was before the courts where he was awarded millions where people tried to rumour and claim the same. I doubt wikipedia would wish to be in court for a similar situation and then lose. Think about that please.

May I also draw to your attention the constant alteration of information by UpDown on the same page? He has altered the page on numerous occasions, in conflict with other contributors, and added contradiction to another verified wikipedia page entitled Commonwealth Realms. This has been drawn to his attention but he has chosen to ignore it, repeatedly. He has also chosen to alter verified source information on the title of Lady Louise Windsor. Could I also suggest you look at his page as there have been numerous complaint on a range of different matters? Thanks very much for your kind consideration. Aussiebrisguy 12:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you don't understand the situation. It doesn't matter how often a situation is rumoured, it remains not verifiable fact. Please reread the example I gave. The page as it stands is quite unverifiable and inaccurate. I wonder have you seen the subject concerned in a compromising situation? I have not seen any factual, verifiable information to say this has occurred. I have seen a so-called source rumouring something but that is not verifiable fact. Where is the evidence? The answer is it does not exist. It is just rumour and historians do not run on rumour. They look for verifiable fact. As for the other matters, I am not drawing you into them, I am merely bringing them to your attention. You do not have to do anything about them of course. They do shed light on a person who repeatedly vandalises other peoples articles. I wonder what you do about that one? That is a matter I am drawing to your attention and request that the person concerned is officially warned. An answer would be appreciated as the 3RR rule has been repeatedly broken by UpDown and not just on contributions made by me. Have a look at what has happened to DBD contributions when UpDown has removed sourced information. I believe I am being accused of the same thing. It would appear a consistent approach would be fair.

Thanks for your consideration. Aussiebrisguy 1:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Soz About EE Templates
I didn't realise. I just rolled up my sleeves and waded in, so to speak. I'm doing the same template thing with Emmerdale. Just question; Will you be doing the same with Corrie or aren't you as big on the street as EE and ED? Conquistador2k6 27 May 2007 13:49 (UTC)

Corrie Templates
I'm in, I've got the day to kill so I'm about to get Bizzay! Conquistador2k6 27 May 2007 13:57 (UTC)

Templates again
I've already started work on t'Websters, Barlows and Baldwins. Let's just split it up all evenly. 27 May 2007 Conquistador2k6 14:19 (UTC)

Use of obscene language
I wish to officially record here, on a page provided by wikipeia and not you, your use of obscene language in reference to me. It was totally unnecessary and reflects very poorly on you. I find this very sad and wish to highlight it so that others can know who they are dealing with when they approach you on any matter. I am also recording information for your benefit from wikipedia on good manners.

Purpose of manners
Manners ease the stress of communal living, and mannerly behavior recognizes the right of others to share communal space. Many of our daily expressions of politeness reflect this function. Saying "excuse me," for example, shows that you recognize that you have invaded another's space, and regret the necessity of doing so. It is a basic tenet in law that it is wrongful to cause damages to another (see norm). Since there cannot be a law for every slight, daily causing of damage to another, manners serve to at least acknowledge, if not make recompense, for the damage. Needless to say, the teaching of good manners should start early in life ....

Aussiebrisguy 19:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, erm, thanlks for that... I've moved it to the bottom of my talk page, where it is supposed to go, and removed the huge, unneccessary lines accross the page. Other than that, I have nothing to say but the fact that you diversionary tactics (trying to focus the attention on something other than what we were discussing) are hilarious. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How very hilarious for you. Aussiebrisguy 20:51 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it's obvious you are diverting the attention because you cannot argue with my valid points, which I find funny. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Policies
Yes, I'll check on that and help you out. BTW, just as a heads-up, the WP:FA process is a very political one, so in some ways it can be necessary to wheel-and-deal a bit, and court favor. Keep in mind that sometimes articles that get sent up for peer review, don't get any comments at all, so in some ways people are doing us a favor by taking the time to read the article and give comments. Also, be aware that some of the same people who are participating in the peer review, are going to be the "voters" when the article goes up for Featured status. Though it would be nice to think that an article may or may not get featured status strictly on its own merits, unfortunately this isn't always the case, and personal grudges can come into play. In terms of what this means in practical terms, you can still disagree with people on the Peer Review page, but try to keep all your comments focused on the article, and not on the reviewers. Be excruciatingly civil, and avoid using editors' names, or even using the word "you." Otherwise it's going to make Featured status just that much more difficult to attain. :/ Thanks, and I'll get back to you on the policy stuff, Elonka 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the apology, it means a lot to me, and shows considerable maturity on your part that you're willing to reconsider your actions like that. I look forward to having you as an ally on the soaps pages! :) --Elonka 22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Tense discussions
Looks like this is a hotly-debated topic. At the moment, it's not a policy, it's just a guideline, though some editors like to enforce guidelines as policy, which can lead to some very heated debates, indeed. The key summary of the current guideline is at WP:TENSE. As for discussions, the best spot I found is at: the talkpage of: Manual of Style (Writing about fiction). I've also started a new thread at the Soap Operas WikiProject. I recommend that you participate in both of those. We could also start a thread at Village pump (policy), but I think the first two locations are probably the best spots to start with. Also, remember that the best way to get a guideline changed, is to build a consensus. It's not one editor's opinion that works here, but the consensus of multiple editors that gets things done on Wikipedia. Good luck! :) --Elonka 21:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Tara Reynolds
Lady Tara has married Sean Reynolds off-screen and is now known as Tara Reynolds, ithout the title of "Lady". Please do not change this again - it was mentioned on-screen by Eric Pollard. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * She was credited at the end of the episodes as Tara Thornfield. Also she never said her name was Reynolds, Eric just presumed. I won't change it until I hear back with your response.Jameshdl 11:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler
Hi, I just left a bunch of comments all over the place about the Pauline Fowler article (Talk:Pauline Fowler, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas, the Manual of Style discussion and Peer review/Pauline Fowler) and I wanted you to know that I'm not trying to start a revert war or force my opinion. But the truth is, present tense is current policy and the Pauline Fowler article will not make it to FA status with past tense, even if we add some "soap opera guideline." At first I preferred past tense, but with more exposure to Wikipedia articles and editing, I've come to see how important the differentiation of tenses is. Forget what your used to, look at it from an analytical perspective. TAnthony 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Minor quibble: Present tense is a guideline, not policy. But, guideline-adherence can indeed be enough to make or break an article's rise to FA status. I recommend that we work very hard on coming up with a consensus guideline that works for everyone, rather than trying to make a black & white distinction. I'm sure there's a compromise in the middle somewhere.  :) --Elonka 21:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree, a compromise needs to be made, but at the moment (as I've said on Talk:Pauline Fowler) I don't care about FA status, I care about good grammar and that the article is readable. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wanted you to know that I have made my last argument regarding the Pauline Fowler article, and will not interfere with whatever the consensus is. That said, I've just read your comment re: the vote and though I of course understand that you prefer the readability of past tense, I still can't wrap my head around what it being an ongoing show has to do with anything, as opposed to being a film with an and. How is "As Star Wars begins, Princess Leia is putting her hair into buns" OK to you and the same EastEnders phrase is not? And I kind of resent your saying that present tense is "bad English," I could get you a list of novels written in it. TAnthony 15:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Friendly smile


''Hey there, I'll be we'll be best friends once we get over this tense thing!! &mdash; TAnthony 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)'' TAnthony has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Cheers :) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

gimme,gimme,gimme
hi trampikey,

i'm not trying to be mean or anything, i just wondering why are you deleting my contributions. hope to hear from you,

Jack Redmond JackRed2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackRed2 (talk • contribs)

sorry
hi trampikey,

sorry only got your message now, sorry again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackRed2 (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rae hendrie.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Rae hendrie.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Monarch of the Glen
Hey there, I've been tagging articles like crazy for WikiProject Soap Operas. I'm not familiar with Monarch of the Glen, would it be considered a soap? If so, I will tag it and related articles (characters, etc.). Thanks. TAnthony 00:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing of your user pages
Hi Trampikey! I don't know how often you visit Swedish Wikipedia but a new account, User:Nonpayer registered an hour ago, vandalized your user page there. I blocked the account infinite. I'd just like to inform you that you might check your user pages on other languages as well. Sincerely StefanB sv 13:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler
Trampikey, I realize that you feel strongly about the past-tense issue, but it appears that there is a clear consensus to use present-tense. If you still feel that this is the wrong course, I would recommend that you follow one of the next steps in Dispute resolution, meaning a Request for Comment, or mediation. If you would like, I can help you with the necessary paperwork. I don't recommend these courses of action, because they can stretch on for months, and may further delay the FA process. But if you feel that strongly about this, I will help. --Elonka 23:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Trampikey, is it alright with you if I proceed with an FA nom on Pauline Fowler? You're definitely one of the key contributors on the article, and I would not feel comfortable submitting a nom unless you're on-board.  Do you think we're ready? --Elonka 19:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever, it obviously doesn't seem to matter what I think anyway. Go for it. I hope you all get the result you're so keen for. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Awww, I am very sorry you feel that way. You've done an enormous amount of work on the EE articles, and deserve to be proud.  I care very much what you think, as do other editors on that page.  If we didn't care, we wouldn't have put so much effort into discussing things.  It just seems that on this one issue, that we couldn't reach a meeting of the minds.  If you'd like, I'm still willing to help out with filing a mediation request? --Elonka 20:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, I can see when I'm clearly outnumbered. Go for it with the article, and again, I hope you all get the glory you so wish. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If the FA succeeds, some of the glory will definitely be yours. It's my firm belief that a certain amount of disagreement on Wikipedia is a good thing, as it leads towards a stronger article than what might be achieved by an article where all the editors are all thinking the same way. So for what it's worth, thank you for sticking to your guns.  :) --Elonka 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want the glory - I don't like the fact that people changed their minds about things just to get this stupid FA status. And someone had to stick to their guns, when others flaked. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

FA nom
Thanks for amending your comment at the Pauline Fowler FA nom. Just as a formatting point, when you cross out one comment, it's good form to put your changed comment immediately underneath it, to keep the entire thread together. Otherwise it looks like you're crossing out your support, meaning that you're opposed to the nom. The reviewing admin will see the cross-out first, and may not notice that you posted a different vote further down on the page. Just FYI, Elonka 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, when you get the chance can you put in separate refs for the Hugh Miller book in the pauline article. They pedants are asking for a separate one for each page.Gungadin 16:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. :) How pedantic was that request though?! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a perfectly justified request. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It was indeed. J.W inklethorpe talk 18:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Note to self
Ross Fletcher's wife is called Pam. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)