User talk:Arniep: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:47, 31 October 2005

Welcome!

Hi Arniep! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Merovingian (t) (c) 00:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think probably the issue of categorization of English dynasties at the very least needs to be reopened again on the categories page. I've put the English kings in a more specific subclass Plantagenets so they at least don't get confused with the other houses of Anjou. I agree that it's not Wikipedia's job to "standardize" names where there is no standard, nor to impose continental notions of what a house consists of on British monarchs. - Nunh-huh 02:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevera photo

I think that, because the photograph is the subject of an article that discusses the attributes of the photograph, {{art}} makes sense here. I think the distinction can be drawn where the photograph itself is sufficiently notable that it's worth talking about it separately from the photograph's subject. JYolkowski // talk 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can determine the difference by the use. If a photograph is being used in a context where it is being treated as a work of art, then we can consider it a work of {{art}}. If not, then not. If someone incorrectly tags a photo as {{art}}, then we can look at the article it's included in and determine whether it really is art. If it isn't then we can tag it as {{fairusedisputed}} or as an imagevio or whatever. JYolkowski // talk 16:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merges

Contrib merges are no longer being done. However, I've taken the liberty of sending your password to your email account. This will only work if you provided the email upon sign-up, however. Good luck. Superm401 | Talk 15:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bentham

Thanks for the note on Bentham. Looks like User:susurrus has now reverted the changes, although as you mention, asking for permission might have been a better route. I am unsure what UCL's policy on Wikipedia is, although I'm 'close' to the university. --stochata 06:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Polon still uploading images with no source

You wrote: Hi! you left a note on User talk:Polon's page on the 7th, they continued to upload photos with no source and license Special:Contributions&target=Polon and readd photos to pages when I have labelled them copyvios could you give them a admin warning or something? Thanks Arniep 21:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I will check it out and leave a proper message, or take stronger action if it seems justified. DES ^(talk) 21:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Bacall

Sir, you added:

"she was to rise to greater things"

This is POV. To some the stage may be greater than the screen.

Also, if I am going to do a lot of edits on an article, I check the talk page. If you had looked at the talk page for Ms. Bacall, you would have noticed a nice discussion about Bogart calling her "Baby".

WikiDon 19:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Hate to be a pest, but....you said:

"Bogart never used her real name..."

The defense takes exception to the word "never." That is a very strong word, where did you obtain that from?

WikiDon

Publicity Photos

Hey there. Thanks for your comments about the photos I've been posting. (Like Bruce Cabot). These photos are promotional photos given to the press when they were first released in the 1940's, so wouldn't that mean that they fall under public domain? The whole point of the photos, released by motion picture companies, were for them to be used in media for publicity for their films or music. So are we not using them correctly?

Publicity Photos

sorry. no signature Steve-O 18:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stick with Screenshots...

Thanks. I'll stick with screenshots from my movie collection. I thought the publicity shots from 60 years ago would be OK, but it seems like it's not worth the effort. Thanks for the tips, however. Steve-O 23:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cherie Blair

In which case, please accept my apologies - I've recently had to deal with a couple of hoaxers and am on a bit of a hair-trigger! Vizjim 23:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Britons

It is not the category that is odd so much as who is in it. Roy Keane almost certainly does not have a British passport and so it is pretty strange to think of him as British. Without reading Cherie Blair's bio I certainly wouldn't think of her as Irish, she's from Liverpool and a Catholic but AFAIK that's as far as it goes. If a grandfather or greatgrandfather from Ireland makes you an Irish Briton then at least 20% of Britons are Irish British. I think it should be restricted to those who had a parent from Ireland or those for whom their Irish heritage was actually important e.g. Spike Milligan.GordyB 10:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I exaggerated, but my point was similar to GordyB's above, about the numbers of British people with Irish ancestors. The categories for Irish-Americans, German-Americans, etc are including people on the basis of great grandparents; if we did the same for the British category we would be talking about hundreds or maybe even thousands of people. JW 11:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arnie. I haven't voted yet (I'm still not sure where I stand on the issue), but I pointed out the CfD discussion on the Irish Wikipedians' notice board, which should get a few people involved. RMoloney 02:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen your comment on my talk page re: renaming the category to British Irish. I don't think that really helps address the various issues around such a category. I note also you've now suggested Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain. I think that is less bad - it uses terms that are current in the language - but still inherently problematic as a category for putting individual people into. At what point do individual people stop being part of a diaspora and become part of the country where their ancestors moved to?

I note that a number of pages which refer to Irish people in Britain appear to be pushing an agenda - I am not of course suggesting that you are doing so! - and this is something that should be avoided. (For example Irish community in Britain lists numerous people who allegedly belong to the Irish community. Some of them are Irish citizens who live in the UK. Fair enough. Others are prominent people who few would think of as Irish (or even "Irishish"). Similarly the page reports on the 2001 census which put the percentage of people declaring themselves to be of Irish ethnicity in England and Wales as being 1.2%. It then goes on to make a POV case that this figure is "ridiculously low"). My concern with this category is that it will lend itself to such people pushing agendas - both pro- and anti-Irish - without being especially enlightening to the WP user. Valiantis 15:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote to support your helpful proposal to rename to Category:Britons of Irish descent. I think that's a good compromise and avoids most of the POV issues. Better to try and get consensus on a 'middle ground' rename than to have no consensus as no consensus means the cat will remain under the existing name! Valiantis 22:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your newest proposal to rename to Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain. Sorry, but I'm unhappy backing that for the reasons I stated above. I would fit into that category in the way it seems to be being defined (in so far as it is being defined at all) and yet I do not see myself as part of any diaspora. I note that a user below has queried your adding of Jack McConnell to the current cat and I see the "Irish diaspora" wording leading to almost as many debates (and edit wars) as the current name. This is not near enough to the middle ground to work for me. I'm therefore abstaining from any further comments on this issue in CFD unless anyone writes anything particularly new there, so I won't actively oppose your new proposal. Valiantis 19:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS - You may want to update the header in CFD to show your current rename proposal so that it's clear to latecomers what rename they're voting on. I believe this is the standard practice. CFD currently shows the proposed rename as Category:Britons of Irish descent. Valiantis 19:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish British people

hello. i read through the debate on the cat's renaming/deletion. the reason i voted to keep Category:Scottish-Americans is mostly because there exists cats for so-called Irish Americans and African Americans, cats which i personally would like to see gone but that exist for culturally (and even psychological) reasons that see a lot of people wanting them retained. since i know they cannot be gotten rid of, i d like to see them at least balanced in a sense by having similar cats for all ethnic backgrounds. however, my personal bias is that they should not exist for "tagging" ethnicity (as goes on), but for indicating first generation immigrants who have an original cultural set of values that can be identified and linked in wikipedia to that country/region. many users however use the cats for second, third, or any generation of person with ethnicity. as for the cat in question, i too have a problem labelling Bono, Roy Keane, and others included on the list as Irish-British notwithstanding an explanation in the head of the cat of what is to be meant by it. i would propose a cat for first generation Irish immigrants who settle in Great Britain and call it Category:Irish-British people and separate lists, one for Irish who have contributed to British culture and life, and one for wiki articles on Britons with Irish ancestry and have the lists linked to the cat. however since this is not really the support you were looking for, i withhold voting. regards -Mayumashu 03:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish British category vote requested

Got your note, Arniep, and put in my $0.02 -- with best regards David Hoag 06:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McConnell

To be honest, just expressing my opinion here, and in no mood to break the Three Revert rule, I think having an Irish grandfather is a bit of a tenuous link to add him to that category - the existance of which appears to be under debate. Erath 18:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the category is for people of near Irish descent in Great Britain. Arniep 19:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is, in line with comments above might I add - is that the defintion of an Irish Briton should not be strung so wide - I second User:GordyB's comments above about there being a notable link or a close family one. Having an Irish grandparent is of no significance to McConnell. Erath 19:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, I am not sure how you know that it is of no significance to him unless you have actually asked him. In fact he recently campaigned against sectarianism which may well have been influenced by his own Irish heritage [1]. Arniep 19:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess I don't know. But, his stance on sectarianism is as likely to be as a result of the scale of the problem in Glasgow as to any Irish descent. I for one, living in Scotland and following politics, have never heard of McConnell's Irish descent being brought up at any time - I reiterate that he probably doesn't belong in the category. I think we need a third party to settle this one though. Erath 21:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actors in commons

hu:User:Nikita is a brand new editor in the hungarian wiki, she is a movie fan. By her story she was on Cannes Festival, and take hundred of pictures. She have the bigger versions, I going to tell, for justify herself she can upload one original sized one. Otherwise it looks the actors are missing theme... On her discuss page i gave instructions. --Aranymalinko 14:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita start upload some pictures, and I try moderate her as fast as possible. For Nikita now clear the open publicating features, our task to find the best text about it. A hungarian admin, Serinde joint to clean up the licenses, so the situation going to normal. Not this is my main editing theme, but me was online at that time... --hu:Rodrigo 20:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good job finding status of Image:2003icp.jpg

Thanks for putting it on Ifd as well. It's sad that we have to delete such images. --Bash 21:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commons links

Wikipedia is written primarily for readers, not for potential future editors. The Commons link clearly says "has more media related to ..". This is a lie. Wikimedia Commons does not have more media than the article itself. Therefore the link should not exist. As a compromise, I am going to comment out these links so they are only visible to editors.--Eloquence * 11:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To state that Commons has more media when it does not is an error in fact. Errors in fact are unacceptable in an encyclopedia. If you wish to advertise Commons, do it in a factually correct manner - change the text in Template:Commons.--Eloquence * 11:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Irish British category

What about a category for all Irish people in the UK, and a subcategory for the Irish people on Great Britain? (Probably Northern Ireland people would be another subcategory.) — Insta ntnood 17:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For navigation purpose, category:Northern Ireland people already fits as a subcategory to the category I suggested for all Irish people in the UK, until there's a need for a seperate category for Irish people in Northern Ireland. (are Irish people in Northern Ireland "diaspora", by the way?) — Insta ntnood 08:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the people there may agree with the status quo or not is not quite relevant here, since as an encyclopædia we have to acknowledge facts. Sectarianmism is not desirable, but presenting some facts for encyclopædia purpose is far from being sectarian. — Insta ntnood 13:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Rename the category first to reflect that it's for the Irish diaspora and the people of Irish descent in Great Britain. — Insta ntnood 14:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One category is already fine, I suppose. — Insta ntnood 14:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change my comment on Cfd accordingly. — Insta ntnood 14:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, don't think there's a need to separate them at the time being. — Insta ntnood 08:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British v English

The anon to whom you refer is deliberately being a pain in the arse. The best policy is to play it by ear, whichever seems the more natural, and also bearing in mind the historical context of that person related to the history of the Union. e.g. Martin Johnson is English because he played for England whereas Steve Redgrave is British because he rowed for Great Britain.

The categorisation system is supposed to be independent of the text, though I agree that some of the overcategorisation is silly, but I can't be arsed to try to fix it. Dunc|☺ 19:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 109: / Line 109: @@
 ::::<cite id="Re:_Irish_British_category_reply_5"> </cite> One category is already fine, I suppose. &mdash; [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 14:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 :::::<cite id="Re:_Irish_British_category_reply_6"> </cite>I'll change my comment on Cfd accordingly. &mdash; [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 14:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
+::::::<cite id="Re:_Irish_British_category_reply_7"> </cite>As [[#Re:_Irish_British_category_reply_5|mentioned]], don't think there's a need to separate them at the time being.  &mdash; [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 08:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 == British v English ==