User talk:Tvoz/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

archive 6 most of 2010 except a few items I wanted to keep around

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Tvoz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 399 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Robert Price (attorney) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Bot, I created that stub over 3 years ago and I don't even remember doing it! Tvoz/talk 06:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cat Stevens review

I only took a fleeting glimpse at the article's review after adding to some of the album pages. Wondering what your thoughts were, since most of the fault is mine. I agree that the majority of Cat Stevens's success commercially was in his earliest years, although there isn't as much in the way of sources, (his site, the majicat site) and as you said, you can wear them out. But also I felt the music clips showed his progression from early to mid to current days. Far more than half of his life he's been a Muslim. I am part of the biography group in Wikipedia. Am I supposed to ignore that part of his biography, only because he wasn't as visible in the Western world? Cause in the Islamic world, he remained a big influence, as well as for people seeking spirituality and being intrigued by Yusuf's changes in life were also influenced by him? I think I'm confused between biography groups and musicians work groups here. What do you think? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Vonnegut quote re Pancake

Belated thanks for your kind note in December 2008. As you can tell by reading this, I don't log in at Wikipedia as much these days--maybe that will change in the new year. As for the books I review, mostly literary fiction and poetry. Hope this finds you well. --Beth Wellington (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I will take you off the list

sorry for any annoyances. your talk page seems very, very familiar. Ikip 08:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

good luck with your valuable edits. I am sorry to see that you left Article Rescue Squadron. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 16:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I will readd you. I thought <strong> was synonymous with <strike>. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 00:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

We have to remove a photo

Remember when I mentioned finding a photo on another Wikipedia-language website, but felt it looked like it was from a newspaper somewhere? We'll have to remove this from the Cat Stevens site: I'm telling you, just so you know why. I found this article: Return of the Cat, 30 years on --I haven't even looked it over for any useful information. As soon as I saw the photo credit right in the box--WHAT are those other Wikipedias thinking-- and what was I thinking to trust them--though I did such extensive searches for additional articles to use, I assumed the photo was OK. But it IS credited to the Associated Press. It does not get any more copyright violated than that. I'm removing it. Sorry. I'm looking for some additional photos from earlier times, primarily, once again. OUCH. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, always have to check the provenance. This is one of the reasons I stay away from photos here. Tvoz/talk 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yusuf and more

Tvoz, you never replied to my last question here-- you on a break from talking? I'm trying to find things I can fix and help with on the Cat Stevens article. Thus far, I've uploaded missing song covers from those pages and added some text and references to them. Also, a few references to bolster the main page, and removed a few dead links with good ones. I wonder if work done on the album and song pages helps the article as a whole overall to regain it's GA ranking? Is there anything there that you are aware of that could help his article? Oh, and I removed the photo that I (recently) found credited to UPI from one of the other language Wikipedias (the one you said you hoped we could keep but I thought looked like it was from some newspaper). Also, I've found another recent photo of him, and am 95% feeling we'll have that, too. I also have the same two photos from his PR people- one great head shot of him young, and the other, of him older. Do you or do you know someone with an ORTIS account? Normally, I only upload from Flickr. Still not sure what to do with these. If you send me an email, I can attach the photos so you can get a look. Oh, another thing; can you recommend someone who can show me where to find reviews and the proper way to add them to album pages? I sorely need the guidance at least once, esp. for albums that are ah, "vintage" ;))! ..as well as those that are recent, for the Yusuf album and other stuff. There are some lovely performances with Yusuf and Alun Davies (MY KINGDOM for a photo of Davies, (AND Nicky Hopkins, Andy Low-Fairweather, Gram Parsons, and Stevie Ray Vaughn off the top of my head) but Yusuf and Davies played with Fairport Convention at their Cropredy Festival --just lovely, and Yusuf was so funny, and the twinkle is back in his eye. ... finally! For your enjoyment: [1] [2]. There are more if you look. Really nice. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts I'll place here and below.

Well, I didn't completely disagree with some of the GAR comments - for example I've also made the point before, as you'll recall, that in my view there may be too much emphasis on his life as Yusuf. I think of course that it should be in the article to some degree, but as I've said, his main notability and fame comes from his musical career, not his life as an educator or philanthropist. And to the extent that there has been a lot of press attention to some of the things he's alleged to have said or done in recent years no doubt comes from the fact that he is a former rock star, now converted to a different way of life. So when the GAR reader says that there's something off about the percentage of the article that is dedicated to his religious views, etc., I don't really disagree. The way to address this is not clear to me, but we might reduce the listings of recent appearances unless there's something noteworthy about them -like his being denied entry to the US again.

As to your questions: no, as far as I know, the quality of the subarticles does not have an impact on the determination of the main article's GA status. Good to have them improved, but I don't think their quality will affect whether or not this article is considered GA.

Subarticles: Too bad, though I feel the songs and albums either cited or at least included in the text should all be represented (Indian Ocean?) and tight, or at least factual. Matthew and Son for example, has Davies listed among the personnel, six years before they met!

As for the photo stuff, once again, as a rule I don't do photos here as I can't deal with the somewhat arbitrary (in my view) rules about what some people think is legitimate fair use, etc. Not only do I not have an account there, I have no idea what ORTIS is. Leah, no matter how many times you ask me I have the same answer: trust me when I say I am not the person to ask photo questions of.

Arbitrary! Good grief, they're Nazis in Commons! I know most of the rules re: photos except ORTIS- it's a permit to vouch that a proffered photo via email from an outside source Creative Commons license required to upload to Commons. I never bothered with that and should now. I HAVE uploaded and placed over 300-400 photos -half the list is on my user site. If you ever want to know any photo stuff, ask- I just never know what new you've learned!

As for reviews - they are no different from any source material. If they are online, great, you know how to add the citation. But we are not required to use sources that are retrievable online, so if you find paper copies of music magazines, etc., that have reviews, you are welcome to quote from them and give proper bibliographic citation information, just no URL link. There's nothing different about online or online sources other than the URL. Where to find them? Good question! Libraries, tag sales, who knows? Maybe Rolling Stone has a searchable archive. etc. Perhaps one of the WikiProject music work groups has experience with this.

I addressed a few of the concerns that the reader raised when he posted, like the consolidation of some single sentence paragraphs, but I haven't had a chance to look at it in further detail. What I'd suggest is to go through his comments and see if any seem reasonable and easy to fix, and do those. But we're not required to go along with one reviewer's opinion on this - this is why the GA/FA status is not something I usually get too excited about. I don't agree with him, by the way, about the music clips - I don't think that there are too many.

I am happy you agree! The music clips mark changes in his sound, and should stay, and I'll fight that, if it's all left standing. What does this mean? You lost me there in that sentence starting with the "on this 0 this is why"

I had dropped the dash accidentally - sentence should read But we're not required to go along with one reviewer's opinion on this - this is why the GA/FA status is not something I usually get too excited about. Tvoz/talk 04:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Tvoz/talk 21:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the complaints re: the article. Yes, there should be more re: the early period. The contact, his A&R man emailed the (still not used) photos -one young, one recent. It seems The primary article name changed from Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam? It's WP policy to place the most recent pic in the infobox, but here I disagree: more people identify him as Cat Stevens. I placed it at "Return to Music" - as you said, he's more famous in the Western world for his musical career. Thus, I feel that the early years need beefing up, with more information on his later Cat Stevens albums or the songs on it, and, as you suggested, his newest work, and retrospective interviews as well. I think these would be prudent steps:

1. His song and subsequent work with Indian Ocean appears to be a turning point in both his music and view of it, sounding more like Tea for the Tillerman than anything previous to the pinnacle of his career. I don't know how to properly assemble album articles beyond Stub class. If you can find someone to teach me, I'll happily work on it.
2. The Majicat site is not only back up, but he himself has added maybe 3x the info that was previously there, from periodicals that can be tracked down in some cases. There must be more guitar magazines, and fanzines with actual interviews still around from Stevens' youth. Rolling Stone is just one of many, I'd think.
3. I also think that more can be added to his early years, I still want a photo and info of Alun Davies (musician)|Alun Davies]]. Yusuf's 2009 performance at the Cropredy Festival was introduced by Gerry Conway, Stevens' former drummer, (now, like Davies) a part of Fairport Convention and he was accompanied by Davies, and Richard Thompson. Which brings me to wonder, don't you think Stevens' core backing band should be mentioned by name in the text- those who, other than the Foreigner album, were his mainstay, a tight-knit and devoted group to him, and merited their own pages in Majicat.com. I'll find the reference!
4. Last, after his top three albums, very little is in the main text about them, songs from them, like "Oh Very Young", and quite a few more. I think this is what needs expansion. There are interveiws with him now (some on You Tube) regarding his feelings towards the albums, songs, etc. There are some great refs regarding Yusuf's future, saying he planned touring, not b/c he needed the money- it would go to charity, but that he felt he needed to re-establish a rapport with fans who were cut off too quick so long ago, and more about him viewing his role as a bridge between his past and present. Some of this is repetitive-sorry. My email is open should you wish to quit these long talk pages!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick point: not sure what you meant above, but to be clear, I will not go along with a change in the primary name of the article. I feel strongly that it must remain as Cat Stevens, with Yusuf Islam as a redirect to Cat Stevens, as it has been. Tvoz/talk 04:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes

Hi, Tvoz. You reviewed List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes a year ago at WP:FLC. I've recently returned to Wikipedia and found the page to be a complete mess.[3] I've spent the morning redoing the page, and left a message on the talk page. If you wish to comment, feel free. Practices change all the time, and I haven't kept myself up to date with them all, so I suspect you're more versed with current article structure, lists and whatnot than I am. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't looked at the page since October when it still looked pretty much the way it had when the last major edits were made, such as incorporating the list of which lead character pair is featured. So my not commenting on changes that were made subsequently doesn't mean I liked them or didn't. But I do prefer it the way you reverted it, and said so on Talk yesterday. I'm not up on current practices at all, so I'm in the same boat as you are. Cheers Tvoz/talk 16:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping us improve wikipedia.

This user helped promote Inauguration of Barack Obama to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Larry King

Thanks for bringing the issue up at my talk page. Per the format guideline for the "spouse" field listed at Template:Infobox_actor and all other infoboxes, the only information to be entered in this field would be "Firstname Lastname (Year–Year)" or "Firstname Lastname (Year–present)". If you think putting simply "present" might confuse well-intended editors into changing it to "2010", we can add a note to the end (that would only be visible during editing) indicating that this should not be changed until a divorce has been finalized. The final text would then say:

[[Shawn Southwick]] (1997–present) <!--please do not change "present" to "2010" until a divorce is finalized-->

Let me know what you think of this, thanks. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 12:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bronx High School of Science

Why shouldn't the alumni be in another section? You never gave a reason on the discussion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did give reasons - see the section above your announcement - "Suggestion to editors" and I've added some more comments. Tvoz/talk 06:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Hello, today (May 20) you added some info to the Rand Paul article about winning the primary, with the two refs named "primarywin1" and "primarywin2" but you did not actually add the references. Could you please add the sources you are using? Thanks. - Salamurai (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry! thanks for the note - I had added those refs to the senate campaign article and was in a hurry - I thought I had them in Rand Paul too. Will fix! Tvoz/talk 06:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Palin

See this and this "I thought I'd be somewhere warm at college with my friends..." I've since removed it since you think it's not so notable. ★Dasani★ 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Missing edit summary

It isn't completely obvious why you reverted this edit. It would be helpful to others if you used a descriptive edit summary at least in cases where it won't be abundantly clear to even a dullard like me. --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, sorry - was using new 'pending revisions' process and didn't realize it would go through before having a chance to add a summary. I removed it because I question the assertion that this particular book is "most notable" and therefore appropriate to be singled out in the text - there's some question about self-promotion here. Tvoz/talk 15:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree on that point! I noticed your revert because I edit conflicted with you while I was attempting to make an edit removing the "most notable" and changing it into a such as myself. Sounds good, thanks! --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bronx Science Talk

Can you check the talk page please? i just made a new proposition to take out the stuff you wanted to. --Iankap99 (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me - I have no objections if you wish to summarize those sections. Thanks for pointing me there. Tvoz/talk 15:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of new to editing, do i need consensus to do this? And if so, how many people agreeing constitutes consensus. --Iankap99 (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it kind of depends on the page and how contentious it is - there's no actual number needed for consensus, but generally since you posted a note on Talk about this (which was a good thing to do), if no one has spoken up to object in a few days you can go ahead and try it, but keep an eye out for objections and be ready to discuss. I've been editing this page for quite a while and I think from time to time there's been some sentiment about keeping everything in those sections there, but a comprehensive prose section or group of sections that capture the breadth and diversity of these student opportunities should be ok. In other words, saying something like "Bronx Science has many teams including baseball, basketball, and ultimate frisbee" would not be enough. Same for the clubs and the events. This wouldn't be a summary section, but more a translation of the lists into prose form. Not an easy project, but worth a try. In general about consensus - sometimes the bold edit is just what a page needs, and the people who regularly edit there will see it as an improvement and a jumping-off place and will be happy for the fresh eyes brought to it. But just lopping off a section of a page is bound to be a problem, so discussion leading to consensus would be best. It's not a vote - consensus usually involves compromise and means general agreement, not majority rule. It's kind of subtle, but worth understanding because it is how everything is supposed to work around here. WP:CONSENSUS is a good thing to read - and there are a number of other pieces talking about aspects of this - it's that fundamental. Hope this helps. Tvoz/talk 13:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok can you take a look at the sports teams now?--Iankap99 (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bristol's name

Does anything belong in that article? Gwen Stefani said the same thing but I thought it would be appropriate for Bristol, and a lot of celeb articles read "Prior to becoming famous, ___ dreamed of becoming ___"

★Dasani★ 21:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

First, I'm not going to make an argument in favor of the article's existence at all (if that's what you mean by your first sentence), as I think it's marginal at best, but I can live with it. Some number of readers are likely to come here looking for information about her so I suppose it seems a little bit better to have her own article than to bog down her mother's with minutiae about Bristol. But just because something can be sourced does not mean it is necessarily notable, and I wouldn't want to pad this article with trivial points as a rationale for its existence. About Bristol's name, who really cares why she - a very minor celebrity at best - was given that name, but if we're going to follow the source and say she's named after Bristol Bay and Bristol Connecticut, surely we need to explain why those two places have any significance to the Palin family. As for "prior to becoming famous..." if you are talking about the point that she thought she'd go to college after high school, that again is not such a significant point, but in any case we can't say, from the People article, that she meant the lower 48 when she said "somewhere warm". Probably yes, but that's OR. so I removed it. More importantly, again, what is notable about this? Tvoz/talk 23:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering an FA has such information (as well as articles about far more important issues), it's funny that an article of much lesser standard (albeit less famous person) lacks it. You removed a few lines, stating, "It's not important -- doesn't belong in the article" I'm asking what DOES? Not questioning the existent of her own Wikipedia page, as the talk page has debated that before. ★Dasani★ 15:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really: full length (featured or not) articles go into much greater detail than this article which is all of around 700 words of "readable prose". A minor factoid about the derivation of a subject's name, or what they dreamed of doing before their lives took the path that led them to fame/notability, makes more sense in those longer articles to be included. In this article the name thing takes on more weight than it is worth, in relation to the length and depth of the rest of the article. But in any case, I didn't remove the name thing, I clarified it - the way it read before just stated that she was named after two seemingly random cities. At least now we explain why that might have been the case. As for the plans after high school, I put in a phrase about it, again with some context, but without the assumption that she was planning to attend school in the lower 48 which the cited piece did not explicitly say. To your larger question: what should be in this article? I don't really think this article should be in the encyclopedia at all, based on her very minor celebrity-hood, but I've already said why I can live with it. What should be in the article are notable, cited facts that are important to the story of her life, such as it is - the things that readers should know in order to more fully understand who she is and why she is important - like any of our biographical pieces.. Preferably the references should have some third-party analysis behind them, some assessment of the notability of the subject and his or her place in society - not exactly what we're seeing here. That's why I question whether a biography of her is viable at all, but so be it, for now anyway. Tvoz/talk 18:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of HappySad Records

A tag has been placed on HappySad Records 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 an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles 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 organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Codf1977 (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice - I've expanded the stub to indicate its significance, and I see that you removed the tag, so thanks for that too. Hope you find it more acceptable now. Tvoz/talk 18:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

David Hays

Hi Tina,

I've finally gotten around to making an entry for Dave. Hope things are going well with you and Paul.

Bill Benzon (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Tina,

I used Dave's full name because that's what I've seen with other bio entries, though I certainly didn't do any systematic looking, but, yes, David G. is generally how his full name has been stated. I also know about the inline citation thing, but will ignore it if and until someone threatens to remove the article for that violation of Wiki anal retentive style. The fact is, the mere fact that I have written the bio is a violation of Wiki best practices, as I am a very interested party and thus prone to lapses in objectivity. Hence, now that there's something there, I want to keep hands off. As for where born and relations, well, some of that is in the NYTimes obit.

Bill Benzon (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cunt and "7 Dirty Words"

Is the word really "taboo" generally or just on networked stations? I ask because there are sourced examples of both networked and PBS in the article, although admittedly not common. Some reference to FCC(?) broadcasting standards might be useful in clarifying the exact position. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much taboo everywhere other than the so-called premium pay cable stations like HBO and Showtime which is where the examples in the article are from. (PBS is broadcast, and I don't expect you'd hear 'cunt' there.) Cable in general is not subject to the FCC restrictions - but technically "broadcast" means not only network - it's any station that is traditionally broadcast over the public airways (even when they are actually delivered by cable), so includes local tv stations that may not be affiliated with one network. The FCC has no jurisdiction over pure cable or premium pay channels like HBO and Showtime which is where you'd find words that are still considered obscene (by the FCC) and banned from broadcast tv. With the exception of Jane Fonda's Today (news) show broadcast interview, I'm not aware of 'cunt' on any broadcast tv. Several of the other 6 words have slowly started appearing on regular cable, but most still not on broadcast, and 'cunt' specifically is still pretty much taboo other than on premium pay cable. Even movies with "language" are often bleeped or overdubbed on regular cable. (HBO, Showtime and the other premium cable stations would present the movies without bleeping however.) I'll see if I can find a reference that helps. Tvoz/talk 07:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that Fonda's interview was live, so her utterance of "cunt" was not a decision on the part of the network, but rather an unintended consequence of live news shows not having the five second delay, thereby endangering our morals and threatening our very existence... I would bet that it was bleeped when the show aired on the West coast on tape delay due to the time zone difference, but I don't actually know for sure. Tvoz/talk 15:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is US-centric ;-) I believe (but don't have the time to document) that all 7 words have showed up as appropriate on the CBC radio & TV: "Canada's public broadcaster". Bellagio99 (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's US-centric - the sentences we're talking about are about US television! (No mention in the article about a Canadian liberal approach to language on tv - would be a good addition if you want to do it.) Tvoz/talk 15:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Twersky

Thanks. I was surprised we didn't have an article about him.

And w/r/t being an admin, it really is no big deal. I do a lot of CSD deletions and get a lot of complaints about it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton

I'm going to wrap up my input within a day or two because I need to move on to something I've been neglecting. I think the article is growing in such a way that it might attain GA. Why don't you polish it up and submit it? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton, redux /surname

Tvoz, I understand your desire to keep Chelsea's entry in compliance with Wikipeda (and by extension, as factual as it can be ) calling her "Chelsea Clinton" is not accurate anymore. She's married, and per common knowledge, she's got a new last name now. No, we don't know if it's just her husband's last name or if it's her madien last name - her husband's last name, but her last name has changed, no citation is needed for it, it's common knowledge just like it's common knowledge that she's a female. We can't call her "Clinton" anymore, it would technically violate BLP as it's no longer accurate, but neither is a reference available for her official married last name, but both last names could be included that way, we have a reference for her maiden name and acknowledge the RS that show she was married by using her husbands last name (again, per common knowledge). I did update her page to reflect this. Think about blp before you change it again. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Kosh, I could not disagree with you more. First we don't edit by "common knowledge" regarding things like peoples' names - we edit by sources. And in fact it is not common knowledge that when a woman marries her name automatically changes. In fact, in New York State where she - and I, 34 years ago - was married, the law is that one's name is what one uses - if you marry and start using your husband's name, consistently, it is your name, but you have to go through steps to have your legal documents changed to that new name. If you marry and do not change your driver's license, passport, etc., and if you consistently continue to use your birth name (please, spare me the idiotic word "maiden" when we're talking about a 30 year old woman), that is your name. You do not have to file any papers to retain your name - it is your name. You do not have to have it legally changed "back" - you just keep using your name, just like the man does. Heavens. Even the IRS understands this correctly. We simply do not know what Chelsea Clinton has decided about her name - we could guess that as her mother before her until Arkansas politics intervened, she is a modern woman who will keep her name, but we're also not in the business of guessing. So I vehemently oppose making this change here until we see in reliable sources that she has chosen to take her husband's name, or a version of it or something else entirely. You do not know if she is now calling herself Chelsea Clinton, Chelsea Mezvinsky, Chelsea Clinton-Mezvinsky, Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky, or Chelsea Smith. So you are being presumptuous, at present, in making the change - and, I might add, a bit offensive, although you probably didn't intend that.

Secondly, invoking BLP is ridiculous. Do you actually understand what BLP policy is about? Do you actually think that it is defamatory to leave a woman's name as her original name until we hear otherwise? In some circles it might be considered defamatory to assume that she changed her name - but I am not saying that either. I am saying that with full knowledge and understanding of BLP policy, this has nothing at all to do with it, and I reject the argument. So, with all respect, her name reinstated as her name is correct. I will be glad to change it if and when we know that she has changed it - she decides her name, not you, not me, not Wikipedia.

Thanks for leaving me a note, however, and I will be happy to discuss this with you and anyone else - I'll copy this to the article talk page where it will get a wider audience. Tvoz/talk 18:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton /pictures

I agree with you. Yes, the pictures are fine. They're lovely. They're free. But they were taken within a matter of days of each another and depict the same subject: Chelsea speaking on behalf of her mother. Is it necessary to have two such pictues in the article? Why? Please explain. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

-

The pictures are months apart, not days, for the record - but in any case do you know of policy here that supports your point? Because i am not aware of any. One picture is for the infobox - its primary purpose is to give the best available shot of what the subject looks like, regardless of what text it might also illustrate. I would not object to shortening the caption, but don't really see any need to do so. The other picture directly illustrates one of the major sections of the article, so is appropriate to be next to that text. Tvoz/talk 05:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

One pic is Feb 2002 and the other is April 2002 making them days or at most weeks apart. Nonetheless, they depict exactly the same thing - Chelsea speaking on her mother's behalf. The inclusion of two such pics in a very short article, and, as you mentioned, likely headed for AfD, won't help and sets a bad example for other editors possibly looking for layout models. The infobox pic is suggestive - wide open mouth and bulbous microphone. Call me old-fashioned, but it actually excites disgust and mirth. This is a pic we can live without for at least two reasons, whether it's free, fine, long standing, or otherwise. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you deliberately misunderstand everything that is said? I said in edit summary regarding your inclusion of the exact time that the marriage took place: (→Engagement and marriage: the time is not necessary in her bio - save such minute detail for the dedicated article if it survives afd). The "dedicated article" I was talking about, which is currently up in AfD, is Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding. I was saying that minute details like the time of the marriage and other such details do not belong in Chelsea Clinton's biography, and if they belong anywhere it could be in the sub-article that is specifically about their wedding, if it survives AfD. How you could characterize Chelsea Clinton as "a very short article" or suggest that it it "likely headed for AfD" is really beyond me. It is not short and there is no way it will be deleted. As for the infobox picture itself, we obviously disagree - and you said a few paragraphs up that you thought the pictures were "lovely". So now the infobox picture "excites mirth and disgust"? Actually, I like that one much more than the other one for clarity of view of her face. I think you need to re-examine your own POV that you have very clearly brought to your editing of this article. And as for the picture being "long-standing", that is a way of gently saying that many editors have looked at it over time and you are the only one who has said that the picture is "suggestive" or inappropriate in any way, and that wasn't your argument in the first place anyway, so I am starting to think you just have issues with your changes being reverted. And February to April is two months, not days. Not that that makes any difference at all - Caroline Kennedy has 2 pictures that are 7 days apart and illustrate the same thing. And the editors there felt that having both pictures enhanced the article. Here we make the point more than once that Chelsea made many appearances across the country, so having more than one actually makes sense in illustration of that fact - indeed, I'd even add another one or two if we found good ones. More illos are considered a positive when an article is up for GA/FA, by the way. So I reject both your first argument and your second - I simply think you're wrong. Feel free to discuss it on the article talk page if you feel so strongly about it, and elicit the views of other editors. I note that as far as I've seen you are the only one who has removed the infobox shot or objected to having the two. Tvoz/talk 07:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton rewriting/reverting

I'm wondering why you insistently revert my work? The brief edit summaries are not enough to satisfy my curiousity and I seek a more in depth explanation. I left the article once out of frustration only to have you ask me to reconsider and return. I return and you insistently revert, rephrase, delete, and otherwise exercise control over every aspect of the article as (apparently) some sort of self-appointed "Editor-in-Chief". I don't understand and find such behavior disruptive. Please explain. I need to know why we are expected to abide by your judgement on every aspect the article. I wonder if there's a teasing, taunting "ownership" issue going on here? You did say you've worked on the article a long time and I'm wondering if you feel your territory is being invaded. I hate to think that and would like that nightmare laid to rest. Please give me some reassurance that you do not have ownership issues. Only you can help! Please do. Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Susanne, I have to tell you I find this comment borderline insulting. "Teasing", "taunting"? Where do you see that? Ask anyone who has edited with me if they'd describe my comments that way. With all respect, what you seem to be saying is that you have the ownership problem. If you'll look again, you'll see that I'm not the only one reverting some of your edits, so you might think about why that is. I asked you to reconsider leaving because, as I said then, I think you are a good writer and you were overreacting to the reverts that three editors made to material you inappropriately posted about on AN/I. I thought we would be able to work together, but honestly at this point I think maybe you were right, that you should move on to something else. I don't own this or any article, and I certainly don't think I'm "editor in chief", which would be pretty delusional on Wikipedia. I mentioned that I've been working on this article for several years, and also on numerous other articles related to personalities connected to the past Presidential election including the candidates, family members etc., to indicate that I am not just passing by and reverting changes willy-nilly - I have knowledge of the subject and a sense of how these articles have been shaped and edited for a long time, so I'm not "insistently reverting" your work - in fact I found much of what you have done to be a big improvement to what was a sketchy piece before the recent influx of source material became available. But I also wonder if you have brought a POV to your editing whereby you look for material to insert that puts her in a negative light with an over-reliance on tabloid-ish, celebrity, gossipy sources which are not the neutral reliable sources we want to be using. Balance does not mean for every positive thing said we need to have a negative - it just doesn't work that way. So I don't know what to tell you - this article is not my work and not your work - like all of the encyclopedia it is a collaborative effort which means that everyone's additions are subject to rephrasing, rewriting, reverting, reinstating, and so on. I'm not rephrasing your work, I'm looking at the words that are there and editing them as I think they should be. I try to leave edit summaries to explain why I'm making changes (you could do more of that) and when there's an issue or disagreement that calls out for more discussion I post on talk and try to reach a consensus of the editors who are participating here. (A recent example would be the talk page discussion of her surname.) I'm sorry if this is not a comfortable process for you, but it is the way it is - especially on articles about American politics and its associated characters. (Although I have to say I have been witness to much more bloodletting on articles about The Beatles.) You are more than welcome to edit any article you want to edit, but you need to accept that the words you put on the page may well be gone before you can catch your breath - and it's not a reflection on you or your talents. But discussion on Talk is always an option. Tvoz/talk 07:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In less than one week, this editor has performed 121 edits to the article, and has taken another editor to both the AN/I board and the 3RR board. I surely guarantee that if a "collaborative" mindset is not realized, this editor is going down a very "bumpy" road. Talk it out: and not about WP:OWN. It's a slippery slope... Doc9871 (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Some folks get it, some folks don't. Tvoz/talk 08:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? (chuckle) ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's used in the source. Modify the snarl. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to, and don't appreciate your tone. Tvoz/talk 06:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Or... "You talkin' to me?" I'll stick to policy, and will quickly find it if someone else doesn't first. Since you've randomly entered my flighty "interest zone", it's probably best that you do the same. Could you expand on your above comment, please, Susanne2009NYC?

Once again, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Tvoz/talk 06:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What is used in the source? And what's up with the "snarl" thing? Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't realize it but in trimming the Chelsea Clinton campaign section to the bare bones you are actually enhancing the negativity. Most Americans feel it is a fundamental right (freedom of speech and all that) to ask a politician or his/her deputy any pertinent question without being rebuffed or dismissed out of hand. In trimming the article, you are presenting Chelsea as an arrogant snob out of sync with the fundamental rights of all Americans. The fact that she rebuffed a well-meaning little kid is very damaging to CC's presentation in this article. It might be best to delete all the negative material - the little kid, David Shuster, and the university student - whether these were top news stories or not. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC I think the several negative incidents that present Chelasea and her parents poorly can be removed without damging the section. They are superfluous and present the Clintons as basically arrogant snobs above our fundamental rights (we are politicians but we don't have to answer questions from the American people). Chelsea couldn't answer a little kid's simple question, the Clintons got a journalist suspended because he was exercising freedom of speech and press, and Chelsea rebuffed a university student because she was unprepared. It would be best to eliminate these three incidents as they do nothing to present the Clintons in a positive light whether the incidents are true or not. We can revise this material to the the last trumpet but they will always present the Clintons in a bad light. Best to remove them. I've rewritten the section. It's on the article talk page. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Susanne, the comments you make pretending to be sympathetic are repeatedly snide, negative comments about the Clintons. You clearly have a sarcastic, negative POV on the subject, poorly disguised as wanting to present them "in a positive light". We are supposed to be neutral, not present them in a positive or negative light - you have been told that over and over, yet you continue to do it. You are the one inserting negativity, in discussion and by implication in your editing and it is becoming tedious. The two preceding comments by you here are perfect examples. You, and only you, use the words "arrogant snob", for example. Please find something else to do - this is going nowhere. And I'd prefer not having this side discussion on my Talk page - this is about the article, so keep it there. Tvoz/talk 01:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Arrogant snobs" is an idiom and is not my take on the Clintons. But this is how a general reader of the article could interpret these revisions. Upon reflection, I think the three incidents in the campaign section should be deleted. The incidents are supersensitive and almost any reader would come to the conclusion that the Clinton family does not wholly support free speech or freedom of the press. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, only someone with an agenda. Please keep this on the article's talk page, not here. Tvoz/talk 04:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Commanding other Editors

No matter how frustrated you may become, please consider not commanding other editors: "Stop this... you are wasting our time." It smacks of WP:OWN. John2510 (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, WP:OWN!. This accusation is tossed around so much on WP it's kinda sad, really. "Our" time is the community's time, not just Tvoz's. He has urged several times that this be taken to the talk page of the article... yet here you are behind Suzanne2009NYC. He can "command" anyone not to comment on this particular page, you know, and erase any and all posts from it, if desired. I'm still on the sidelines on this one, but if his wishes are not met concerning the furtherance of this discussion on the article's talk page (where it belongs) instead of his page: problems may potentially arise. Take it to article talk (or AN/I, RfC/U, etc. if you believe he's in error: I don't really think he is). "I command you to!" (snicker) Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, he "can" do as he pleases. Wikipedia allows all editors that power, in the abstract. I only suggested he consider avoiding such behavior, and posted on his talk page out of discretion. I believe your "problems may potentially arise" comment is similarly inappropriate under Wikipedia standards. John2510 (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay: "problems could arise." Somewhere, somehow. You're accusing Tvoz of ownership of this article - do you have evidence to support it? Keep the talk centralized on the article talk page, please (since it is directly related to this post): you can accuse him there of ownership, harassment, POV editing... and any other things. People will chime in, I'm sure... Doc9871 (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Commanding an editor not to contribute to an article is about the clearest evidence of WP:OWN as anyone could possibly imagine. I'll keep talk about an article on the article page (where it belongs) and talk about an editor's inappropriate editing tactics on the editor's talk page (where it belongs). John2510 (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

When an editor's contributions to an article fail WP:Consensus: consensus wins, not the editor wishing to contribute. You're here because of the dispute at Chelsea Clinton - heck, a huge percentage of your edits are devoted to this! So far, I'm certainly seeing consensus swaying one way. I like your Moxie, kid; but you really need to start backing up your accusations with WP:DIFFS if you want them to go anywhere. I'm not one of the "kinder, gentler" editors on this project, and I can be quite "dogged" if I see any sort of socking/SPA's/"POV pushing". Inappropriate editing tactics notwithstanding... Doc9871 (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - Tvoz, please feel free to kick us off the page: I'm sorry I'm somehow continuing this discussion. For the topic at hand - we go to Chelsea Clinton. For editor behavior... my talk is always open! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

← 1. John, I stand behind my comments to Susanne here and on the article talk page. I have been patient and respectful in the face of baseless accusations from her/him, and I have tried to work with this editor. But when I see what seems to me to be trolling I am going to call it out. Saying that you want a specific edit, the edit is made, then you say you think that edit is the problem - in the span of 2 hours - is pointy and, in light of all of her/his edits and commentary, trolling. So I said so, and suggested she/he "stop it" and "find something else to do". (I think calling this a "command" is a bit much.) I change my mind about edits too, but when I do I acknowledge it - this is a pattern with Susanne, where it seems to be more a matter of getting people to jump through hoops than actually wanting to improve the article. And the clear biases disguised as wanting to "protect" the subject from negative portrayals are actually laughable. As I told Susanne, we're not here to portray the subject negatively or positively, we are here to portray her neutrally.

2. It's ok with me that the above exchange with you and Doc is here, but I asked Susanne to not put her/his comments about the Clintons here any more since in my view she/he has moved into trolling and if it's going to happen, let it happen on the article talk page where other editors will see it. I've been here a long time, and I've encountered other agenda-driven editors, which I believe this to be a case of, who operate by overwhelming other editors with many edits, contradictory edits, putting material in, complaining about it, taking it out, putting it back, all with little or no explanation. Then when called on it, they drown you in commentary. I call it "bully" editing, trying to wear down others so their POV can prevail, and they usually are pretty good at appearing to just be reasonably editing. I haven't decided if I see Susanne as a bully editor yet, but I do see serious issues here and I don't choose to play it out on my talk page. I don;t particularly care to debate it with you either - as Doc said, if you have a specific accusation to make, please make it.

3. It's "she ", not "he". Me, that is. No problem, just saying. Tvoz/talk 18:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I realized that after-the-fact. I apologize. Also... I appreciate that we compromised on the recent edit and regret getting off on the wrong foot. I think we both bring our own biases to our efforts to achieve (what we each perceive to be) NPOV. John2510 (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's ok, I've been called worse than "he". And I'm glad we were able to compromise too- indeed we all bring our biases to everything we do, but most of us either don't discuss them or perhaps admit to them - it's the ones who protest that they are doing one thing when they are clearly doing another that I'm concerned about. Tvoz/talk 05:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Shiny, happy people holding hands..." ;> Doc9871 (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

indeed! Tvoz/talk 15:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Phillip Markoff / Craiglist Killer

Why do you make all kinds of reverts w/o discussing in the talk page? Ricardo Santiago (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was returning the heading to the way it's been standing for a long time by consensus - there's no problem with your making your edits in the first place, but when I reverted them (once) with explanation you probably should have posted your talk page notes and waited to hear what other editors think rather than reverting my reversion and posting on talk at the same time. See article talk for replies to yours. Tvoz/talk 01:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hi Tvoz. I think your revert there was a bad call. Therock40756 has been bullying his changes through since yesterday, and I think you rewarded him by reverting to his version (he's made 3 outright reversions, but if you look at his edit you'll see he's made many more than that).

If anybody needs to develop consensus on the Talk page, it's Therock40756. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn - I misread the edit. Thanks for coming here - I have reverted myself. Tvoz/talk 03:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a million. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion makes a lot of sense. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. And there's no need to beat yourself up. We all make mistakes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

hahaha, for sure - some being worse than others... Tvoz/talk 21:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Accidental reversion

Oops, I apologise for vandal-reverting you on the Leslie Lynch King, Sr. article, it was a complete mistake! KaySL (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for the note. I assume you'll revert your reversion? Tvoz/talk 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

All done ;) KaySL (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - as you can see above, it happens to all of us! Tvoz/talk 16:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"read the source before throwing on tags"

Yeah, actually, I did. The Wikipedia article claims that there were 2,977 casualties. The source claims that there were more than 6,000. That is a contradiction. The article does not clarify the reason for the contradiction. The tag applies perfectly. Thanks for the snarky mini-lecture, though, that was constructive. Minaker (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if that was snarky, and if this reply is, but the source is from September 30, 2001 and the point being made in our article is that at that time it was believed that over 6,000 people had died - which is what that September 30, 2001 source says. The relevant quote from the source is "The death toll from those attacks is estimated at more than 6,000." The sentence referring to it in our article is "Weeks after the attack, the estimated death toll was over 6,000." Perhaps that could be phrased a bit clearer, but it in no way contradicts anything. Tvoz/talk 03:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You say "tomayto", I say "tomahto"...

...AKA Female vs. Women: This CFD just closed -- I'm sure you'll approve of the outcome. I can't for the life of me explain why it didn't occur to me to tell you about it 'til now... some sort of brain malfunction, apparently! :) Cgingold (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

AHA! You are learning, CG! (Would anyone agree to have a category named "Men Comics Artists" or "Polish Men Writers" The tide will turn back to sanity on this - if I convinced you at all, then there is hope! thanks for letting me know even after the fact - should keep an eye out for others. Hope all's well! Tvoz/talk 16:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hosue episodes

Thanks for your comments about TenPoundHammer's unilateral and undiscussed action to remove virtually all episode articles. You might note that he/she has removed some with proper sourcing. I have reverted some of those, but I don't intend to get into an edit war. If I had the time I would add sources and restore them. I may work on that a bit at a time. Thanks again. Cresix (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have known about it at all, except that I had a load of the episodes on my watchlist because of some minor fixes I did a while ago - when I see dozens of redirects I know something's up. I don't have much if anything really invested in these articles, but other people have done a lot of work on them and there is no reason given to have done this that makes any sense at all. I'm not going to get into an edit war either, but as this is a long-time editor, I am hopeful that he'll grasp the fact that he has no consensus for this, despite the guideline he quotes, and didn't actually follow, and will undo his own work. Tvoz/talk 16:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am opening up discussion on article talk pages (which are intact even after a redirect). You can find them in my edit history. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey there!

Tvoz, thanks for the "get well" -- I'm about 95% and been hospital-free for a week or two. Did you have anything in particular you wanted to discuss? ALSO while I have your attention, one of the last entries in my talk page is the result of me revisting the site for Kaki King, and finding at least one copyrighted photo of her there. I left messages on the talk page, and it turns out that the primary editor in recent months signs her name "E"-- she says she types the four tildes each time...  ? Problem: she works for King's recording company. The photo came from King's MySpace that I removed. Maybe you can have a look? She's nice, but I'm no diplomat as you are. Thanks both ways. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: JFK conspiracy

Hey, I just wanted to directly (i.e. on your talk page in case if you'll miss it on mine) thank you for personally explaining the reasons for reverting my edits in Autopsy section of the linked article. --Wayfarer (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Goldengassers.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Goldengassers.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:MurraytheK Beatles.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MurraytheK Beatles.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Malia Obama

I believe you are unreasonable in making excuses not to have the article on Malia Obama. I also think you are a political activist and hold your loyalty to activism more than to Wikipedia.

I hope the issue of Malia can be resolved but I think you will be militant so I, hereby, notify you of arbitration. Presidentmalia (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I also ask for mediation with the goal of having you confess your activism and agree to stop. I think you will not agree to mediation.Presidentmalia (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, no point in replying, seeing as this account has been blocked. Too bad, as I was going to ask who I can talk to about getting paid for my comments. And I wonder, does anyone else find this guy eerily familiar? Tvoz/talk 02:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Happysad.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Happysad.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Done

Re:

Hello, Tvoz. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiderolls 07:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've replied further. Tiderolls 23:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Bristol Palin

Hello Tvoz. I wanted to know your reasoning behind removing me edit. In your edit summary, it says that we are not a news source giving week-by-week calls. However, the article says what song she danced to on Week 1, which is even more week-by-week than what I put. I wanted to add that because it shows how much America has liked her, and have voted for her, even though she was barely famous before she came on Dancing With the Stars. I am not trying to start a fight, but I just wanted to understand your reasoning. Kind Regards, Whitestorm13 (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so like adding citations for her going so far into Dancing With the Stars, and no one expected her to? If so, I will get on that right away. Also, I do not mean to challenge you, but is the part about her dancing to that song neccesary? I mean, I know it was sort of a big deal, but I don't know if it should be added. Kind Regards, Whitestorm13 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Keith Olberman

I saw your revert to Keith Olberman, but I see nothing relating to the matter on his talk page. Can you please explain why his MSNBC job should not listed as past tense? Looking on TV right now, his normal spot on TV has been replaced. - Tyler - 00:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I was in the process of writing on his Talk page when you posted this question - I should have done that first and reverted second, but my reasoning is up there now. And by the way, his normal spot has not at all been replaced - there is just a temporary stand-in for him tonight. We'll know more when it happens - it has not happened yet. Tvoz/talk 00:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. Tyler Tyler | Talk - Contributions | 01:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I messed up your thread at talk countdown with keith olberman. Your deletion of my naughty countdown without keith olberman comment was the right thing to do. Sa ya no ra. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to say so. Actually your comment was cute, just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Tvoz/talk 19:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The joke depended on the formatting. That format doesn't last long here. Deleting it quickly was better than letting it crumble. I don't mind. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about the Cat Stevens article(s)

Tvoz, first, I have wondered why you were visiting my talk page about 2 months ago, when you noticed I'd been in the hospital for awhile. Was my talk page just on your watchlist, or did you have anything you especially wanted to say then? I'm curious! Next, In the "Majicat" site, many new articles, (I think) have appeared which may help in developing the "Cat Stevsns" section of the article, and possibly regaining the GA status it once enjoyed. Finally, I don't know if you noticed, but Starbucks has an "Opus Collection" of CDs by different artists, and Cat Stevens/Yusuf has a CD in that collection; I couldn't help myself, I bought one. All the songs are from the peak of his career: Mona Bone Jakon through Buddha and the Chocolate Box- with the exception of the title song to Roadsinger (To Warm You Through the Night), and I think maybe one other bonus song. It's been a while since I edited the article... do you know offhand if that new release is mentioned in the text, or the discography? Are any of the Starbucks CDs worthy, I wonder? I may also ask User:Wasted Time R, since I noticed him working on Sweet Thursday (with Nicky Hopkins and Alun Davies), but it would help, I think, to ask you both. Please answer on my talk page. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting Cronkite / karate

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_Cronkite&diff=next&oldid=396617514 Javaweb (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

Sure thing - the vandal thought he was being clever using a real book for citation, but he forgot about Google books. Tvoz/talk 01:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Bristol Palin

I did some expansion, refs, and reworking on the DWTS section...could you please look it over for NPOV and prose? Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 22:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Good improvements - I tweaked it a little and fixed refs. Wish we weren't leaning so heavily throughout on People magazine, but at least we have sources. Tvoz/talk 08:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool - thanks for fixing it up! Kelly ^hi! 18:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just did a little more trying to be responsive to the complaint about "wikipedian commentary" - see what you think. Tvoz/talk 18:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good. The absentee ballot stuff does seem a little awkward in that section, but I don't know where else you could put it. It did receive a fair bit of coverage so notability isn't a question at this point. Oh, and I'm hearing that she is a prominent part of the upcoming episode of Sarah Palin's Alaska this coming Sunday so there should be some references about that next week in addition to the DWTS final. Hopefully after that the article stabilizes for a while. Kelly ^hi! 18:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You think she'll dance with the bears? Tvoz/talk 19:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh - no, but she does fire a shotgun and whack big fish with a nightstick. Kelly ^hi! 04:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, sounds like must-see-tv. Meanwhile, we do need cites for it, despite VV's reassuring "It's not just any show" - whatever that means. I know we'll have them soon, but meanwhile I think the tag should be there. Maybe I missed something, but I haven't found a reliable source to put on there, even as a placeholder. If you have one, great! Tvoz/talk 04:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah, no media reviews for SPAlaska yet - will have to wait until next week. BTW, just saw a couple of stories - more Conrad Green defending the voting process/Bristol and explaining the vote, and threatening letter with white powder mailed to Palin at ABC studio. Kelly ^hi! 04:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Edwards

Thanks for chiming in, although to your point about one of the links we don't have in there, I had to remove it twice and have a discussion. Otherwise you'd have been discussing that link too. Don't thank me. :-) Thanks - and keep up the good work!  Frank  |  talk  23:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoops - I had not seen that. But totally agree with the removal! Also, the new refs to the books aren't done right - I'll get to that shortly. Hope things settle down. Thank you for your help too, as always! Tvoz/talk 01:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, but I always have to look up how to do that...one ref to the book then sub-refs showing just the page number. It would be much cleaner but it's not in my "I-do-it-every-day" repertoire so I find it tedious. I wonder if there's an easy way to do it. I'll be watching the page to see if you know of one. :-)  Frank  |  talk  03:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

On another note, I tried to collapse smilin' Johnny's face but was unsuccessful. Short of putting another nav box below, do you know how to do that? I just don't think his mug needs to figure prominently on her page.  Frank  |  talk  03:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh Frank - I missed these comments. will look into this when I have a sec - don't think I know how to do the nav box collapse, but I'll look around. The refs arn't hard, just a bit of a pain - I'll get to that too if no one has. Thanks! Tvoz/talk 17:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I think I fixed the problem with autocollapse of Template:John Edwards. Let me know if that isn't working right for for. Kelly ^hi! 17:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work, Kelly - thanks for that. I should have caught that...it was in the template itself rather than the page it was transcluded to. Looks good, thanks!  Frank  |  talk  17:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Great Kelly, thanks. Gotta love the "North Carolina" that snuck into the "state" field. Checkout the template docs, folks, before filling in the fields! (I learned to do that through some embarrassing gaffe a while back which I have blotted out from my conscious mind. not that I always remember to do it...) I haven't looked back at the article yet - will check out those refs soon. Tvoz/talk 18:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Grace Hightower

Hello. Thank you for redirecting Grace Hightower to Robert De Niro. I had just asked help for this, but couldnt because David shankbone's page was locked, so I asked Killer to ask DAvid for me. I'm wondering, what made you interested in the article/redirect? Thank You. 69.140.66.37 (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I noticed the comment on KC's page. I think this is an imperfect fix, but I agree that redirecting to the film didn't really make sense. Perhaps someone will write an article,or at least a stub, on Grace, if there are some better sources than IMDB available. I haven't looked into that. Tvoz/talk 17:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping the IP, Tvoz. I'll look into what's written about her to see if we can get something besides a redirect. I've been sick this week with a head cold, so it may not be until next week. --David Shankbone 19:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Feel better! Lots of nasty stuff going around NY in the wake of the weather shifts. Or, at least, so my mother would have said. Tvoz/talk 19:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the new stub would survive a DR, but I've seen much worse pass on here. It's somewhat helpful as a 'sub-article' of Robert De Niro. --David Shankbone 07:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it works. Not the strongest, but it's sourced, and she has some notability,so I think it has a good shot. Thanks for taking the time to put it together/ Tvoz/talk 07:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure :-) Thanks for reviewing it. --David Shankbone 08:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Kathleen Rose Perkins

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Kathleen Rose Perkins. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kathleen Rose Perkins

The article Kathleen Rose Perkins has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mhiji (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, ok. It's a stub I created yesterday - that's the point of a stub, to have people add to it and create an actual article, with references. I'll add a source -I was not aware of this new policy, and think it's kind of ridiculous for a stub that is not in any way libellous - BLP concerns are properly about potential libel, not about notability or strength of sourcing for non-controversial matters. I have IMDb for starters, which of course won't be considered RS, but I am assuming that will allow this stub to stand until it can be expanded. Here we have another example of the tail wagging the dog. We need to protect BLPs - we should have instituted flagged revisions, or something like that, long ago, as many many editors have repeatedly endorsed, but instead we have newbies running around templating experienced editors about how to reference new stub bios that are totally non-controversial. Welcome to Wikipedia, ten years later. Tvoz/talk 04:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)