User talk:UpDown/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, UpDown/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  GilliamJF 09:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upstairs Downstairs

I just wanted to say I like and admire all the work you have done on improving the Upstairs Downstairs pages. Keep up the good work. Its users like you Wikipedia needs. American Brit 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Jackson

UpDown, I don't mind the years being delinked (although on other pages, it seems to be accepted practice), but why was the cookery show narration reference deleted? I would have thought it relevant for his later years. Though it is hardly a major role that Gordon is known for in the UK, the shows were reasonably popular Down Under, certainly enough to be parodied.—Stombs 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. Actually, the reference was on one of the links from that page. Let me put that in now.—Stombs 10:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Hunt

Thanks for changing the birthyear references back to 1942 :-) I'd outlined on the discussion page research I'd done which proved 1942, but some people seem to just blindly follow what they see on the first webpage they visit. Analog Kid 23:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herne Bay, Kent

Hi. I noticed you just changed a sentence in this article from Victorian drama to period drama. I had actually deliberately used the word Victorian because Herne Bay is associated with the Victorian era. Would it be ok if I reverted your edit or would it be ok to put Victorian period drama instead. Thanks. Ed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epbr123 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Parent categories

Please stop removing parent categories unless the category page specifically requests this. Otherwise articles are needlessly ghettoised. Thank you. Random Passer-by (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it's Wikipedia policy not to categorise people exclusively by nationality or gender because it was decided that is ghettoising and therefore people shouldn't be removed from parent categories unless that has been specifically decided as preferable for that category. I'll try to find the link for you. Random Passer-by (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page and its subpages are the guidelines which you should have linked and been referring to. I haven't re-read them yet to see if they've changed but I will do so and I hope you will too. I'm very much in favour of tidiness and see no point in Wikipedians working against each other unnecessarily. Random Passer-by (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now re-read the guideline I linked and it has changed since I last read it. You were right to remove the parent category. I was wrong. I apologise for asking you to stop. Random Passer-by (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha Christie's Marple

I have noticed you have reverted Agatha Christie's Marple to it's previous state. I spent a lot of time sorting the article out and instead of changing things needed changed, you reverted it.

Also, your edit summary was Normally called "Marple" (ie always in TV listings, ie Radio Times), which is true but on the opening of the programme it clearly says Agatha Christie's Marple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dell9300 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Terry Major-Ball

Updated DYK query On 25 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Terry Major-Ball, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 05:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your support in attempting to put right the unhelpful contributions of a certain editor on Keeping Up Appearances. I hate being drawn into what is almost an edit war, but as it is we have no choice. Maybe we can work to convince him that what he's doing really isn't very helpful at all. Again, thanks! --Will2710|Talk! 12:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've noticed that there is work still to do, I will see what I can do when I get more time. Will2710|Talk! 12:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started work on improving the list of episodes page - do let me know what you think, as you seem to be the only editor who has any clue how the pages *should* be written. Thanks! :D
That's quite alright. I had noticed that yes; I am working on it when I get the time but I am extraordinarily busy in real life, but getting there! As for the table, I agree - were I better with coding I would do it. I will look into it. Thanks again for your support. Will2710|Talk! 14:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping Up Appearances

Firstly, reverting the pronunciation format back to "Bouquet" from my bouquet seems to make little sense. Why does it need to be capitalised? "Bouquet" is not the Buckets' name, it is merely how Hyacinth chooses to pronounce it.

Secondly, the reason the information was added by myself re the cars was that it is a running joke in the series.

Could you explain to me why you felt the need to delete the addition? Does it detract from the article as a whole? Of course not. Does it actually, in fact, add information that is relevant to the programme? I think so. Benbristol 19:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I imagine that it is obvious the surname is pronounced in such a way because the sentence says so. The capitalisation is, of course, irrelevant. Whether people are 'happy' with it is also irrelevant. It is incorrect. I doubt, to be honest, that many people view the Keeping Up Appearances page to actually voice their views on the subject.

Re listing of running jokes. There are plenty of situation comedies that have their running jokes listed so why should KUA be any different? I would actually say that pride in the Buckets' car is a very important joke as it displays the snobbery that is so well-ground into Hyacinth's persona despite the fact that the car was hardly a vehicle to be celebrated as grand.

Annoyed, frankly. Benbristol 20:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Louise Windsor

I've had Lady Louise Windsor protected until we have some discussion about this. I suggest this page as a venue. DBD 12:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes

Hi. Please remember the 3RevertRule on List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes (as you're about to break it (or have already)). Matthew 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally my opinion is the LOE should be standardised to {{Episode list}} to keep a uniform appearance. Matthew 15:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Matthew has a point, and is there any need to give details of actors only playing a minor role? Chris C. Nichols

Feel free to change the page into {{Episode list}} then. And yes I think putting other actors in is important. It gives more information. --UpDown 15:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Jackson

I notice that you reverted the change from a nonfree to a free image on Gordon Jackson (actor). I understand your argument, however, Wikipedia's policy is pretty clear on this, a nonfree image can't be used where a free image may reasonably be used instead see WP:FUC point 1. I've tagged the image accordingly as replaceable fair use, but of course, feel free to dispute this using the appropriate tag. I'm happy to hold off on changing back to the free image until such time as an admin gets around to ruling on yours - usually nonfree images are not permitted for identification purposes when free alternatives are available. You might want to consider relocating the image from its current position of prominence to the Television section where it can be supported by the commentary. I'd also suggest adding a fair use rationale as per WP:FUC point 10(c), that way it'll stand a better chance of being retained. (By the way, I prefer to avoid using the official notification templates on talk pages, hope you don't mind) Dermot 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the {replaceable fair use} tag, it is there so that an admin can rule on this, if your disagree with it, please follow the procedure as explained on the template. Thank you. Dermot 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Jackson

In your edit summary, you said "I've seen many pages that would disagree with that; Please point me to the exact rule in MofS where this is stated". This isn't a MofS issue. It's part of our policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Criterion #1 states that the image must be "non-replaceable" in order to be used. It is widely held at WP:IFD, WP:CV, and WP:DR, that images used in an infoboxes about actors are being used primarily to illustrate the person, and non-free images cannot be used in this context unless free images of the actor do not exist and could not be created.

I was the processing admin who examined Image:GordonJackson.jpg for a deletion request. I was being nice by not deleting the image; many other admins would have simply deleted it. But I judged that it can still be used in very limited ways, so long as it's not used in an infobox. If you continue to insist on placing the image where our "non-free content policy" does not cover it, then the image will have to be deleted. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Bernard Manning

Please make yourself aware of the Three Revert Rule. I must also protest at the removal of British nationality from this article, and as he was not self defined as ethnically English, or citation supports this, or that one can verifiably hold English nationality, I have provided citation. Jhamez84 18:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you're missing the point - you're in breach of WP:CS, and merely citing other badly written articles does not justify breaching the law on British nationality, or defining a new one. Also, newspapers are a far stronger authority than yourself on what nationality someone is! And, if Manning was Irish-Jewish, how was he ethnically English? How does one get an English passport? He doesn't even define himself as English, and there are photos of him wearing Union Flag garbs.
Nationalistic POV is not grounds to remove British nationality, especially when referenced. Jhamez84 19:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:UpDown_5.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:UpDown_5.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 Wikipedia: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. ShakespeareFan00 20:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:UpDown_4.jpg

I have tagged Image:UpDown_4.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Brown

Please remove or change the statement which you keep reinstating about Gordon being the longest serving chancellor since 1997 - he was not the longest serving chancellor when he started! If you read the more detailed explanation in Section 3, it explains this in more detail. Many thanks Lynbarn 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updown...keeping up appearances

First and foremost, my edits are entirely relevant as per wiki manual of style. The christmas specials should be in ONE table, rather than a series of mini-tables which is very untidy. Secondly, the conclusions for each individual episode has not been included for any other episodes, why start now? They are completely irrelevant.

Reguards, Chris C. Nichols

Lets settle this...Keeping up appearances

Why don't we settle this on the discussion page and have a vote. If the majority believes your way is better, then we'll except it; vice versa if they believe my way is more appropriate then we'll keep it my way.

Regards, Chris C. Nichols

Updpwn...keeping up appearances

ok then, we'll do the vote and go with the majority, i will setit up now

Your point on dad's army

that's on that page, this is not dad's army, this is keeping up appearances

Keeping Up Appearances table vote

The system seems to be working on the discussion page; I think you'll agree its a fair way to resolve the issue, because naturally we do have different views. So far Updown, two people our in favour of change, in contrast only YOU is happy with the current system.

Don't you think the specials in chronological order in one table would look so much better? instead of creating a table for one episode? its pointless and looks disproportionate

Vandalism - Anna Anderson page

I wanted to bring to your attention yet another vandal on the Anna Anderson page called Questforanastasia - this user has removed a huge amount of the page. As I do not wish to become involved in what has been a very ugly edit war, I can only hope you will show this user that such behaviour is totally unacceptable. There is a long history involved in this user and other users vandalism of this page. Sadly they do not understand and then launch extremely personal attacks. They are not interested in discussion. An examination of the discussion page on the subject clearly shows this. I believe the article needs protecting. Thank you so much for your assistance. Finneganw 12:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's great....but why are your only edits telling me and Trusilver about this "vandalism"? And even copying and pasting the same exact message no less. Can you please explain this to me? BsroiaadnTalk 19:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could be because this user is the banned User:Aussiebrisguy. The fact that his/her edits are only to Anna Anderson and Lady Louise Windsor shows quite easily that it is the same user. And he's already causing problems on the Lady Louise article. --UpDown 18:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to just bring this conversation over to your talk since it's pretty apparent that Finneganw won't be responding. Who's a sock of Aussiebrisguy? Finneganw is? Are they making the edits again that got them banned in the first place? BsroiaadnTalk 18:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Finneganw. S/he is making exactly the same edits, mainly to the two articles I mentioned. I'm not really sure what he was banned for before, sockpuppeting I think? I don't really think he is doing this now, and I'm not sure we can ban him for his edits alone, but they are disruptive. He flies in the face of consensus/references on both pages. --UpDown 12:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping Up Appearances Christmas Special debate

Yes it is pointless to create entirely separate tables for singular episodes; and the Christmas specials are not associated with any of the series, it bares more logic to have the Christmas specials in chronological order together, rather than being dumped meaninglessly after the series tables; there’s no coherence. In comparison putting the Christmas specials after each other in a table works far better, simultaneously if a user wants to look at the summaries for say series 3- they can do, and if a user wants to look at the specials, they can look in one place rather than having to scroll up and down in order to find the summaries. As for the discussion table, its far easier to see the voting results in a table, and I’ve passed what people’s opinions are as well, so deleting it is another meaningless move.


They don’t look like proper episodes? Ridiculous. It’s simply easier for the users look in one place for the specials, rather than several. When together they’ll still have all the air dates accompanying them anyway, and they’ll be in chronological order. Hence one table does everything what your way does, plus making it easier for the users. “Simple”. Chris C. Nichols 19:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting "the farther christmas suit" edits, as it currently sounds very wordy and i do keep sharpening it up. Chris C. Nichols 19:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris C. Nichols= Edito*Magica

Just to inform you, i'm now going under my new name and account Edito*Magica. If you've got any issues concerning my contributions, please express through my new account, thanks.

*Nothing wrong in getting people involved*

I think the way I have tried to include other Wiki users to vote isn't a bad thing, oh how one overreacts. By the way this is Chris C. Nichols with his new user name, and just for you Updown the tildes, I know that's how you like it. Edito*Magica 22:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping Up Appearances Episode tables

Updown, Due to the defunct nature of the voting regarding the Keeping Up Appearance Christmas Special tables, I have decided to go ahead and include all Christmas specials in one table, for the following reasons: 1. Visually neater than your method, which uses up far more space than it needs to.

2. Easier to read- users don’t need to dart up and down the page to read the synopses for the specials, they’re in one place.

3. Logical & Chronological- The Christmas specials will be in chronological order like your method; simultaneously it seems more logic to have them together rather than thrown about the page.

4. Voting majority- although there was a small number of participant’s in the vote, the majority still favoured my method.

5. The specials are in know way connected with the episodes of the series; why have them next to each other? Don’t say it’s in order of when they were broadcast because having them in one table has them in order too.

6. Together- the series episode tables should be together, and the Christmas specials should be together; would you have an episode from series one separate from the series one table? no. Hence, the specials are know different.

If you would like to discuss this further, go to the Edito*Magica talk page. Edito*Magica 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K U A Episode tablesthe debate drags on

I still disagree. Every episode (or at least most) in each series table aren’t connected, yet they are still in same table. Whether other websites follow your method or not, it doesn’t mean that method is right. Millions of Christians believe in God, does automatically mean he exists? Of course not. Furthermore I have supplied you with a chain of valid and strong reasons as to why the specials should be consolidated, I don’t believe they’re as many reasons to support the current system. Mathew on the discussion page agreed that my method works better, and the only person who agreed with you, was yourself.

Looking at the chain of reasons I have supplied you with, how can you still disagree? Edito*Magica 17:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your message from earlier on K.U.A

Well your argument is immediately floored. I quote: “My reason is simple logic and sense” what’s logic about making multiple tables when you can have one with them all together; I don’t wish to repeat the reasons why my method works better. There is only one plus side to your method and that’s the chronological order, in contrast my method has this plus along with several others. Other websites aren’t important, they are clearly all wrong. Edito*Magica 20:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Lesson

Dear Updown I have decided to give you a quick logic lesson so we can solve the current dispute: 1.) Billy wanted to tell his friends a story; he created two sentences, but which one works best?:

I went to shop and it was raining but I took my dog and I got wet I did.

Or…

It was raining; however I still walked to the shop with my dog, despite getting wet.

Billy chose the second sentence. He was correct.

2.) Edito*Magica wanted to make a valuable and logical adjustment o the Keeping Up Appearances episode synopsis tables; he created two sentences, which one should he chose?

Numerous tables for singular episodes all over the page

Or…

A nice neat table with all the episodes together.

He chose the latter. He was correct. Edito*Magica 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Keeping Up Appearances table debate one again!

Good morning, In fact it does do harm; its pointless! The children in need episode is prime example; a new table for a five minute episode (not in its literal sense), utter nonsense. Its pure logic to have the episodes together, I won’t repeat why because you know I know why one table is better; however I will emphasise the point that consolidating the specials generally looks neater, is easier for the users and still in order. Edito*Magica 10:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping Up Appearances table debate

Furthermore Updown, on the K.U.A episode discussion page, yet another user agrees with my method because it looks less cluttered and more tidy. Edito*Magica 10:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly, yes they are in order in one table; e.g. the 1993 Christmas special follows the 1991 special, that technically is in chorological order, and I think there’s every need in highlighting who agrees with whom, because it indicates what the majority is in favour of. Likewise, I shall not give in either because there is any more reasons that make my method more suitable, and until you see sense then my persistence shall remain.

Obviously, if say twenty people believe you are correct, then your method remains; however if the majority are in favour of my method (which they currently are) then the page will be altered once more in the near future. Edito*Magica 16:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editerofmagic 21:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Keeping up appearances

Hi there!!! I am currently finding myself engaged in argument over the misuse of puncutation by Christopher C Nichols in the keeping up appearances article. The user is also an aggravator of sock puppetry as he has two fully functioning accounts. Please take a look at the edits i have made if you have time to do so and get back to me. I hope my edits are of use as i know you have spent much time improving the article only for 'said' user chaning it. I hope my alligations are not ill founded and that my edits meet your standards. Please take a look. All the best

Keeping Up Appearances new system to settle debate!

Please see the K.U.A episode discussion page for the new system which is a balanced way of coming to a sensible and fair conclusion. Edito*Magica 00:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HOW!?

How is the word quest innapropriate as TV listing language? Words such as success and desperately would be such words if you are being pedantic and the majority of those appear in your edits. Editerofmagic 16:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K.U.A

Somebody has to make a strong decision otherwise the debate will drag on for eternity! The only reason why you don’t like the idea is because in your heart you know that my method works best. Furthermore, I do believe I was playing “fair”, weighing up the good points for each method surely is as fair and logical as it gets.

And can I please remind you that you cannot just remove other people’s comments in that manner. Edito*Magica 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K.U.A Characters

That's fair enough, I shall follow up your suggestion. Edito*Magica 11:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Updown,

Yeah I more or less agree, except i think all main characters (Hyacinth, Richard, Liz, Emmett, Rose, Daisy, Onslow) should perhaps have separate pages because Onslow is just as centeral as for example Richard. Indeed, the reoccuring characters (Bruce, Violet, Mrs. Nugent etc) should all remain on one page. I haven't viewed the K.U.A page since saturday, but do you think we should have the character page titled "other characters", or perhaps having a link from the page to seprarate pages for the main characters? all the best Edito*Magica 19:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the main characters were to have tere own pages, obviously the information on each would be longer. I think your idea of linking the main characters to the articles is good, however I might create new articles as I am concerned of the quality i've seen of some of them. Edito*Magica 18:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new synopsis for character

Hello Updown, I have added a completely new stub for Liz and Emmett on the Keeping Up Appearance character articles. Feel free air your opinion about these new stubs on my talk page. Thanks. Edito*Magica 10:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode list

I think the points I added were relevant; however as a compromise, i'll create a separate heading "episode facts" and include the information under that. Edito*Magica 12:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K.U.A Characters

Always glad to help! Well I know the main postman of the show your referring to, wasn't in series one, and he wasn't in the 1991 christmas special. Emett was in: 39, Liz: 43 Rose: (Portrayed by Miller) is also 39. The Vicar, he was in the first series and so was his wife, however i'll have to have a scroll through the series to find out exactly how many they were in. Once ive found out i'll let you. Edito*Magica 21:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rose and "Sea Fever"

Hello Updown, yes i am positive Rose is in "Sea Fever" however only at the very begining of the episode.Edito*Magica 00:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Callaghan, etc.

Hi. Sorry that I reverted all your changes. I didn't notice that you had made an edit before you made the move, which was careless of me. However, the move should not have been made without consultation. Deb 11:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Please stop making useless changes to date formats in Wikipedia articles. You are just making them less consistent, and not doing anyone a service. If you prefer a specific format, you can set it in your user preferences, and MediaWiki will autoformat them appropriately. Reinistalk 13:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but please consider adding a more explanatory summary to avoid more disruptions. Changes like that are very likely to be annoying to many people. Reinistalk 14:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Reinistalk 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Benn

Please check the talk of Tony Benn's article, There is a telephone interview on Commons which is intended (a) to make an article on Wikinews and (b) as a source for both Wikiquote and his Wikipedia article. He talks at length about his opinions on Tony Blair, the United Nations, and his optimism so far at the early days of Gordon Brown's premiership.

Help transcribing the interview would be appreciated, I have a work deadline and the time I can devote to the Wiki is limited for the next several days. --Brianmc 08:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of birth etc

Thanks for correcting the {{s-par|uk}} to {{s-par|gb}} in Sir John D'Oyly, 6th Baronet, but please don't unlink dates, as you did in this edit. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death supports linking partial dates; it's only uncertain or approximate dates which are unlinked. Thanks! -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Oh, I apologise for that, I always thought years alone should not be linked, but I see that with regards to dates of birth/death they should. --UpDown 10:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I thought we'd clarified this one (see your reply on my talk page), but you've done it again, in this edit to Ruth Dalton. I can't find anything in WP:MOS, WP:MOSBIO or WP:MOSDATE which justifies unlinking single years. If I have missed it, please you point it out to me? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thought it was common knowledge lone years aren't linked (I've seen bots go round and remove them). I think this is helpful. However, this is better; I quote "On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true: Low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century (this excludes special date formatting, see below)". In other words, lone years should not be linked, only full dates should. There appears to be an exception for birth/death years in opening line brackets, but otherwise its overlinking. Regards.--UpDown 11:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other replies moved here, to keep discussion in one place.
Hmm. The first reference seems to say nothing relevant, and the second one done not axiomatically define all linked years as overlinking: it simply says to link them only when relevant rather than linking them all, and if bots are going around unlinking them all, they need to be restrained. I had probably somewhat overlinked Ruth Dalton be grateful if you could be a little keen to remove linked years: some of the years you unlinked are relevant, such as the 1960 date of her husband's life peerage: it came only two years after the Life Peerages Act 1958, and he was only the 23rd non-legal life peer. I have restored the link as 1960 in the United Kingdom, and similarly like her dates on the LCC, such the 1931 and 1935 elections were both significant as times of major political change.
BTW, I was going to notify you too of the discussion I opened at WT:MOSBIO#Revisiting_people_normally_known_by_their_middle_name, but glad to see you got there first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Yes, sorry I should have described the first one better. The point is it talks all about years and how to write them etc, but never links them (in the lower section "Longer periods - Years"). I think is delibrate. I disagree that any are relevant. A link to the 1960 article would not help anyone to see connection to 1958 Act. If you think that is relevant, you should insert a few words in the article, not assume people will know the connection (and linking to 1960 in UK is no difference). The MoS is clear, year links are not needed, so linking to pages just because local election were in that year is OTT (unless it links to page about local elections). It's linking for the sake of linking, and I will remove them again as I believe the MoS is quite clear on this. --UpDown 13:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the first reference, you linked to to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates, but you are now discussing Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Longer_periods. It is discussing the presentation of ranges of dates, not their linking, and doesn't link any dates, so if you take the lack of linking as deliberate, you would end up unlinking all dates in wikipedia. When here are other parts of the MoS dealing specifically with linking, it's not helpful to try to infer something from another piece of guidance dealing with different issues, and it's a very big stretch to claim that this interpretation is "policy". Be careful of WP:3RR: much better to continue to discuss things rather than reverting. I'm happy to discuss further the relevance of linking the dates, but the MoS does not say that "year links are not needed" as you claim: it's more nuanced than that. If you want the MoS to ban single-year links, then please try a policy discussion to get it changed, rather than inferring things which are not stated from a section discussing something else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets ignore the first link then, I know what I mean, but its not crystal clear. However, the second point is crystal clear and I'm frankly amazed you are still ignoring it. It's a shame that someone who produces such fantastic articles feels the need to ignore this one simple rule not to overlink. I will mention on relevant talk page. --UpDown 17:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Original barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School's out changes

Please do not change the "Episode Guide" and "Episode Number" parts of the page. Many other British game and talk shows use the same format to their episode listings on Wikipedia. I would appreciate leaving it as it is. There is nothing wrong with the way it is now about the page that I can see to merit such a change.

Hey, Please do not chew me out. I was only conversing with you. I was just noting other pages for shows of this type like Friday Night Project and Would I lie to you? amongst others The headings are all "Episode Guides" and "Episode Numbers" for those two columns and I just thought it would be cool to keep everything the same.

I spoke to an administrator and he said Episodes was cool, even though I don't think it sounds like a fan site. But I would suggest you can distinguish the # with "EP #" or get rid of it entirely, and just leave the date, as,to my eye it's a bit odd with just a "#" I mean, it works well on that Antony Cotton show page with just the date.(BTW, is there a difference between the & and the word "and"?)

Once again, this is just friendly conversation to explain my post.

btw, i will eventually get my own account when i am ready to. 69.90.207.142 19:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC) samusek[reply]

Then why is the # sign all right and the & not "encyclopedically correct" as you put it. I mean they are both symbols representing words (number and and) and both are widely used on Wikipedia. That's what I need to understand.

I suggest this. For School's Out why don't we dispense with the Episode Number column and just keep the airdates column. I mean the Antony Cotton show only has dates and guests in their tables and it looks very readable. Maybe we can do that and make it more cleaner. Episode numbers are not really needed as long as you have the dates of each episode. 69.90.207.142 17:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC) samusek[reply]

Baronets

I am not impressed by your nonsensical accusation. You are in breach of WP:POINT by incorrectly moving disambiguation pages - also I am not sure you are aware of WP:D but you should possibly read it closely. If you have any issues with it I would be happy to discuss them in a rational manner.--Vintagekits 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Kelly

I went to school with her elder brother, and although I never knew her, I remember her brother telling me her b-day was May 3rd. BGC 21:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but her b-day really is 5/3/78. BGC 21:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McCartney

Hi UpDown, regarding the "Academy Award and Grammy Award winning" info in the first sentence of Paul McCartney, it's not NPOV for several reasons. Awards are not the main focus of the article, so it shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence. There's nothing wrong with it being in the intro, just not the first sentence. You wouldn't say "Carmen Electra is a Razzie award winning actress" in the first sentence, even if it's true (I'm sure you can see the POV in that). It's true McCartney has won an Academy and Grammy Award, but consider Wp:npov#Fairness of tone, which says "even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance". When awards are put in the very first sentence, it implies a positive view of the subject. The awards are fine anywhere in the intro, just not the first sentence. Spellcast 06:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Do not leave messages on my Talk Page. I want nothing to do with you. Tovojolo 13:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I am grateful for your support to what I see as common logic. I have left a note on User talk:BrownHairedGirl's page because I am disgusted with this latest round. There seems to be no point in making valid contributions to WP when cabals exist to attack them (under whatever guise) and where administrators seem unable to truly understand their activities and fall over themselves in appeasing them. David Lauder 13:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think you are ?

Just who do you think you are? Your behaviour on Arnold Schwarzenneger shows you get things wrong too. So stop judging people.You have no right to "monitor" me. The more I learn about you, the more I see how many other people you have annoyed and antagonised. -- Tovojolo 10:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop following Tovojolo around Wikipedia

User:Tovojolo's actions are not your personal Wikipedia project. Tovojolo and yourself have had personal conflicts with each other and neither of you appear to be neutral regarding the other's edits. Please stop following Tovojolo around Wikipedia and revising his edits. If you think Tovojolo has taken some inappropriate action, please use the appropriate page (e.g, Administrator noticeboard, Admin intervention page, article talk page) rather than addressing Tovojolo's actions yourself. Tovojolo and you have been negatively interacting since before July 3, 2007 and this needs to stop. Thank you. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have bad intentions, UpDown. Editors, administrators (see WP:ADMIN), and everyone else on Wikipedia needs to be neutral when the assist others. They should not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


SmackBot

Thanks for your recent note, problem solved. Also looking above, thanks for some of the other work you've been doing. Rich Farmbrough 10:20 28 August 2007 (UTC).

Notability

I can see on your talkpage that you are in alot of arguments with people. I dont see how Charley Kazim Uchea isnt notable so your taging isnt going to work anyway i guess. BUT its not ok to do Bad faith tagings on articlesjust because they are about reality show stars, murderers etc. Juast so you know for the future.--Zingostar 13:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And she also has pages on both simple english and swedish wikipedia so notability is asserted, reverting your changes now.Please do not change back but let a third party do that if necessary we dont want to create a unnecessary edit war.--Zingostar 13:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first of all you should always answer back on your own talk page. and second its not a rumour that she is notable. their is tones of evidence proving that she is notable and what you are doing now is just bad faith arguments. You are the one who need a third party source. their are 2 others who already has edited the article and they didnt find her article to be a nn-bio.--Zingostar 13:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She has been on numours interviews and on The Weakest Link and will soon be a contestant on a new show. and NO you should always answer on you own talk page. what you did was just wrong but i will not argue with someone who just do mean things. Rude and personal? i just told you to not write on my talk page when answering back.but anyway dont want anything more to do with you. bye bye--Zingostar 13:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As i sayed arguing with you is pointless. In my eyes you are a vandaliser. bye bye--Zingostar 13:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i have already asked a third party to look into this. redirecting a page on loose grounds its not OK at all. I wish you could stop sending me messages.because im not interested in discussing anything with you.--Zingostar 14:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion i restore the page, a third party looks into it since we dont agree at all and you just changed the page with no dialogue. If we agree on that i dont see no problem their are thousands of other people that will see the page and if they also agrees with you i dont see a problem in redirecting. peace out!--Zingostar 14:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fare and square, but i think you just messing around but anyway--Zingostar 14:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and your claim that the article is just the same info as on the BB article is wrong their are new information and it will fill up as she get on new shows,doing things,radio tv etc. --Zingostar 14:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Beatrice

[1] – Cheers! I meant to look it up on the CC, but obv. got distracted! DBD 08:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Keith

Wikipedia designed the photo request.There are thousands of photo requests on Wikipedia.Are you going to delete them all?You must take it up ith Wikipedia. Sockpuppet?I do my own edits and who do you presume to be? Vorrock 11:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make baseless accusations or it will be I who will report you.You must have a very limied view of Wikipedia.There are thousands of these photo requests.Your problem is with Wikipedia.I follow the rules.--Tovojolo 11:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

[2] The July 12 date came from the episode Desirious of Change where two charectors are reading a book on Lady Marjories family and it give that date. Such family books are frequently in error (my family book for over five years listed my birthdate as April 7, 1988 and it is in fact March 29, 1989. Perhaps we could read add it but you being a good writer could word it a bit better. Regarding the edits to Elizabeth Bellamy she did go to New York but by the time James visited her in 1929 she was living in Phineox. Ill get the quote from and post it asap. But rewatch the episode All The Kings Horses and you will see. Nevilledad 15:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the first one, yes we don have more evidence to the May 6 date for one reason: King Edward VII died on her birtday and he died on MAY 6, 1910 thus her birthday HAS TO be on May 6. The July 12 date is most likely an error and the fact its fiction i understand but still lets treat as a good show and needs continutiy fixed. Nevilledad 03:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its you who is missing the point. Her birthday is May 6 becuase they celebrated it on that day! The July 12 date is a mere book that no major charector mentions it comes from a type of book notable for errors. Therefore the May 6 date is correct Nevilledad 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you dont understand is that the charectors ONSCREEN celebrate her birthday as May 6. At no point is July 12 mentioned except when a MINOR charector is reading a book with the family history. But as she celebrates it ONSCREEN as May 6 then is must be May 6!! Nevilledad 05:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is onscreen it is on May 6. They are having her party and then the King dies and that happend on MAY 6, 1910. I really dont want to fight and for months you have been well admired by me. I think you have done a PERFECT job on the Upstairs Downstairs articles and you are worthy of a writers award! Really your an excellent writer and editor. And I hoped you would get my point and notice that the July 12 date is merely in a book while the May 6 date is celebrated as her birthday Nevilledad 02:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good resoultion to this. Thanks and Im glad you and I could work this out peacefully. Again, what I said above was correct I had gone to the Upstairs Downstairs pages and noticed that you had done 90% of the work and had admired your work and writing on it. You really did an excellent job on it and your work is worthy of praise. Nevilledad 12:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keeping Up Appearances

How do you mean that version by you navbox for TV programmers is standard? Template:The Apprentice UK is sinilar with my version (ok, though I don't know how "standard" or not that template is). --Movedgood 16:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to argue for what is a "good reason" to it, that there is need to use pink-purple or comparable bright colours? Where in the content of Wikipedia is prescribed what is the standard to navboxes about television programmers? Navbox decoration with colours or other equivalent things is allowed, if it doesn't make functioning of navbox more difficult for example hinder readability of it. --Movedgood 17:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What ever guidelines? I am starting to feel that all those "guidelines" and "standards" are invented by yourself and them have not written down on official guidelines of Wikipedia. In that case, your comments are just your own subjective views and my views about guidelines are that colours cheer up layout of articles and it is a good reason to use them. --Movedgood 18:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is thousands of navboxes with bright colours in Wikipedia. It is a practice. It is only your vision and problem, if they remind you of children books; we others don't need care about it. Do you think really that other people here are committed to comply with the rules invited by youself and which have not written up on official rules to Wikipedia? --Movedgood 12:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to: Colours have distinct shaders, and where goes the boundary line between "week standard colours" and "bright colours"? Don't you maybe will answer that the boundary line goes where what is getting seem in your opinion about children book? --Movedgood 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarissa Dickson Wright

why did you undo my edit? you asked for it to be cited, which I did. There are numerous reports of this from reliable sources which I linked to.Sennen goroshi 17:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that someone broke the law, by definition is controversial. Having criminal charges and offences in a controversy section is standard for wikipedia. Also re. the executed/killed issue, I am more than willing to accept a compromise, I don't think your wording is perfect, and it may be seen as weaselwords - however the main intention of your text is more than fair, I will re-edit it, to give the same facts that your compromise has given, however I will improve the grammar a little and try to make it factual (ie according to this source she was illegally killed) rather than using terms such as 'some claim' which isnt really acceptable for wikipedia, i do however commend you on your willingness to compromise.Sennen goroshi 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, an outside opinion would be useful, if that opinion/opinions give consensus in support of your opinion regarding the edit, then I have no problem whatsoever conceding to your wishes regarding the contronversy issue. I think I have made the request correctly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements but lets wait and see, its the first request ive made here, so i may have messed up.Sennen goroshi 18:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pity you reverted this

Erasing the truth. You should have left it there. Brad 17:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I would suggest nominating an article they have spent time on for deletion but then again they don't have time for writing articles with all of the merger proposals they are creating and then abandoning. They seem to tag 100 at a time and then run off (this article has been "up for review" for nearly two months!) Brad 18:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Burial Ground

I'm intrigued as to how you find "Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms" a POV creation. Perhaps you could explain? --G2bambino 15:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British, or English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish?

Hi, you recently recently amended "Ioan Gruffudd" and "Jeremy Paxman" to remove references to the subjects of those articles being "British from England/Wales", replacing them with "English" and "Welsh" respectively. You mentioned there was "common consensus" on the matter, and referred to the Featured Article "Charles Darwin". However, there was no discussion on that matter in "Charles Darwin", and I believe reliance on the "Charles Darwin" article may contravene the "other stuff exists" rule. As I also couldn't find any advice in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) on this, I've posted a query at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#British, or English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish?". Do put any comments that you have on the matter there.

Apart from the above issue, I notice that you also removed the "nationality" parameter from the infobox on "Jeremy Paxman". I think that was unnecessary. If there is a specific parameter for nationality, then there is no problem in using it since it cannot be confused with the subject's place of birth. Cheers, Jacklee 13:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:UpDown S3Ep8.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:UpDown S3Ep8.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war in the page Template:Keeping Up Appearances

You have nothing right to begin edit war again in the navbox page [3]. You didn't answer my question, which I gave in my talk page [4] [5], which I interpreted so that you weren't going to extend the discussion. Besides, discussions must to keep in one and same spot; I haven't an obligation to answer each time personally in your own talk page. --Movedgood 18:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor children and other non-notable "royals"

Per your comments here, you might be interested in this. Charles 08:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederica

NO ONE mentioned her at all and after the comments you made at the Afd, you are not welcome to post on my talk page I've decided. Charles 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UpDown, I see you've recently been in disagreement with Charles over the future of two possible articles, however on one, it seems you have violated the three revert rule. If you believe you haven't I would have to consider both arguments. Note, I am not an admin. Rudget zŋ 20:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been reported to WP:ANI/3RR, please see there for more information. Regards, Rudget zŋ 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring at Princess Marie of Hanover. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia - please bear this in mind.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 21:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by
adding the text "{{unblock|your reason here}}" below this text, or contact me.
I will stay from all Royalty articles, there appears to be some many disruptive and POV people on them, and time-wasting debates. I will stick to TV articles in future.--UpDown 09:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. All Royalty articles on my watchlist have already been removed!--UpDown 10:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

In line with the unblocking of Charles and your assurances above, I have unblocked. Sam Blacketer 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Sam Blacketer 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]