User talk:Eagle Owl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


Contents

[edit] Hello and welcome

I'm more than willing to help you with your Spanish, if you'll answer my questions about Welsh. Be advised that my Spanish is Latin American, not Spain-Spanish. It's similar enough, like USA English compared to British English. Cheers. Windyjarhead 19:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry to much about the subjunctive. Your teacher might not tell you this, but nobody uses it in real life. It's good to know for literature and that, but you'll get by just fine with a basic understanding of how it works. Check out "Breaking out of Beginners' Spanish" by Joseph Keenan here on amazon.com for details. Windyjarhead 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: I'm a Celebrity, Get Me out of Here!

Thanks for doing the right thing first. I'll certainly look into it. Also:

Welcome!

Hello, Eagle Owl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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! Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 21:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume the conflict you are talking about is between yourself and User:DukeBoy78? Well, you can see by these diffs:
Some questions need to be addressed:
I recommend against making further edits to the page until this can be sorted out. Also congratulation's to you both on your edit summaries. If these questions can be answered correctly, or a collaborative attempt made to make sure the additions are suitable, then there is no reason to not include them. However, the contained inclusions of inappropriate material violates policy and repeated offenses may lead to measured action being taken. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 22:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
No trouble at all. Your a good editor Eagle Owl, and if you need anything at all, just ask. Regards, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 05:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas Card

Merry Christmas!
Wishing you a happy and safe Christmas season, and a blessed new year. Enjoy where you are, and who your with. Merry Christmas! From, Defrag and Jilly.

[edit] Catherine Tate

Hey, i reverted your edits because i don't feel it necessary to have so much info about the show in her personal article. Anyone who doesn't know about the show can simply click on The Catherine Tate Show and find all that information out - the beauty of wikipedia! I'm going to go back and change it again, as well as doing some work to formalise the tone. If you still disagree, come discuss it on the talk page, or my personal talk page - otherwise we could just end up reverting each other's work. Amo 17:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

i've done a small edit to article just now. the article now mentions that it was three series. I don't particularlay like the bulleted list of her films, so feel free to change that if you can come up with something better. The only thing i want to do now is weed out all the "appear"s in her article when i've got the time!Amo 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sue Johnston.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sue Johnston.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Quentin X 13:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunflower Image

Hi Eagle Owl. I noticed you have nominated your photo of the sunflower. However, you have somewhere along the line messed up the page/nomination. Furthermore, one of the requirements for featured pictures is that the picture is in an article and contributes significantly to the article. Your picture is not and does not, and I have to be honest with you - I think many of the existing images are better than yours so I'm not sure it would benefit the article to include your image. Therefore my opinion is that the nomination is without merit. I'm by no means an authority and you are welcome to try to find a place for the image in the sunflower article, but you have to be prepared for it to be removed again if it is not useful to the article. Please read the FP guidelines and the nomination procedure carefully in future. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sue Johnston

It's not clear why you think that your edits "corrected" the format. You reintroduced an unnecessary section heading (it's too short an article to need sections), and you returned the list to the non-standard and confusing form, in which titles were followed by Easter-egg-linked dates in brackets, followed by overlinked formats in brackets, sometimes followed by further (overlinked) dates in brackets. The whole thing was a mess, and very difficult to follow. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The dates mightn't have been random (I didn't think that they were), but they were unexplained, and so obscure. The formatting of lists is unfortunately described differently in different guidelines; there's discussion going on at the relevant MoS Talk page at the moment on precisely this question. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
By "obscure" I meant that it was difficult to understand unless one already knew what the dates referred to. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's depressing that, despite everything I've explained, you're simply still reverting to your version, which is poor in a number of ways (even the title is misleading, as the list contains few films, so is clearly not a "filmography"). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Episodes of series are not italicised, but put in inverted commas; terms should only be linked if they're especially significant to an article (this rules out most instances of years, unless they're in full dates, when they must be wikified); punctuation goes outside inverted commas, italics, etc., as it's not part of titles. Removing {{fact}} templates without giving the required sources is not acceptable, and can lead to an editing block for disruption. Until sources are provided, the items concerned shouldn't go into the list (unless a {{fact}} template is palced against each, but that would look messy). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with IMDb as a sole source is that it can be edited by readers, and is often unreliable. In general, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", and we only include mentions of things in the future if there's a genuinely reliable source for them. Seeing the adverts oneself isn't grounds for entering information, per WP:CITE.
The typography chosen by a publisher, etc., doesn't override the MoS. Also, there's no point making the whole of an article into a section — what is it being distinguished from? As the section is wholly made up of two subsections, it makes much more sense to make them into first-level sections. As you've given no reason for reverting my edit, I can only assume that you're doing it for the hell of it; why?
Also, please don't go against the MoS simply because other articles make the same mistakes. More constructive would be to correct the other articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It's unclear what you mean by "that is actually how it is spelt"; we're talking about typography, not spelling. The former has to be in accordance with our MoS, the latter is a different matter; if the programme were called "Dinerlaydies", that's what we'd call it. If Dickens wrote "A tale OF two cities" on his manuscript, we'd still call it A Tale of Two Cities.
As for the sections, I can only repeat what I said above. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Why did you change the correct use of the em-rule to the incorrect use of the hyphen?
  2. Why did you remove mention of the Marple episode from the text, but add it to the list of appearance? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"But other articles do it" isn't good grounds for an edit. "But you haven't corrected this mistake in every other article in Wikipedia" isn't a reasonable response to the correction of a mistake in the article under discussion.

If the Marple article doesn't have sources, then it should have; if it does, then why don't you use them at this article? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I always add the IMDb link too, but I've known lots of cases where it's less than accurate (see Talk:Honeysuckle Weeks for an example; IMDb used to say that she was born in Chichester, but suddenly someone changed this to Cardiff — which, according to every other source available, is false). It's a jungle out there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Apprentice

Hello, Eagle Owl and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 21:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Fashionbook..jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Fashionbook..jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

I looked, and judged it to be speediable; it made no claim to the significance of the subject. And I agree — it was an appallingly written piece.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Trinny

It's more of an upcoming thing. Once Celebrity Apprentice starts, or even starts to be advertised, we'll need to add a section on Trinny and the rest of the contestant's articles (episode-by-episode involvment, ect). Maybe this is something that we should start preparing sooner rather than later? Please do join the apprentice UK wikiproject, your contributions would be deeply appretiated. Keep up the good work also. Dalejenkins 22:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Both articles really, and the List of The Apprentice UK candidates article needs some brief infomation. If you look at articles such as Shilpa Shetty and Celebrity Big Brother 2007, you'll see the general outline for celebrities and the general practice use on wikipedia RE reality shows. The infomation is fairly brief on the show article, but slightly more indepth on the person involved's page. Thanks again. Dalejenkins 22:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Osbourne

You don't think the information about Sharon's behaviour towards critics should be under health? I disagree. It's *mental* health! I'll wait for your reply as a courtesy but I am minded to reinstate.

It certainly isn't trivia: it's highly bizarre behaviour which seems core to our understanding of the individual.

M

Hmmm. Well, 'health' covers both physical and mental in any definition I've ever heard of.

And this certainly isn't trivia.

So what now?


A 'different sense of humour'? Do you really think that? It looks like a mental health issue to me. Did the people who got these parcels think so generously? No, it's a mental health issue. I think it should go elsewhere than 'trivia'. Let's call in an editor then.

Eagle Owl, see discussion page for main article, let's see what others think.

[edit] Helen Mirren Edits

Thanks for the assist. I sent them a note asking them to cite their changes. Maybe we are incorrect (what with the Essex border redrawing and all), and i want to give them the opporunity to explain themselves. I'm not holding out hope, as the edits appear to be coming in from an open terminal.Arcayne 17:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

New issue - I have noticed the new image used to begin the article for Helen Mirren, placed by User:Bulldogscm. I like the picture a lot more than the previous one (a shot from her BBC series), but Bull hasn't cited the picture's source (not any others, according to his Talk Page). I am pretty sure it will be deleted in about a week without the proper tagging, and then we won't have any picture. What would you suggest we do?Arcayne 23:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trinny Woodall image

Hey there... I hope you don't mind but I noticed you posted this message on User talk:Dalejenkins. It was actually me that tagged Image:Trinny and Susannah.jpg for deletion so I thought I'd respond to the questions you asked Dale.

Our basic rule is that images uploaded to Wikipedia should be licensed under a free content license. Unfortunately, there are some instances under which it is not possible to find a suitable image under such a license, and under these circumstances a fair use license may be used which basically means that, whilst the image is copyright, we believe our use of it on Wikipedia constitutes fair use under US copyright law. This would be appropriate, for example, if we wish to include a company's logo (they own the copyright, but it would be fair use for us to use a low resolution copy of that logo to illustrate an article on the company concerned) or a screenshot from a film (the film is copyright, but it would be fair use for us to use a low resolution screen shot to illustrate the film in question). In both of these examples a free image could not be made (we could never reproduce a copyright logo under a free license, and nor could we have taken our own photos of particular scenes on a film).

Our guidelines for use of fair use images are set out at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. The problem with the image which you uploaded is it fails our first fair use criterion, namely that no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. This is because the image is being used to illustrate an article on Trinny Woodall and a free image could be created to illustrate this article (she's a living person - all it requires is for someone who meets her to take a photograph, and release it under an appropriate license). The key here is the word could - just because we don't know of an appropriate image at present is no reason to keep a fair use image.

To illustrate the idea of fair use, we could probably justify fair use of the book cover to illustrate an article on the book concerned. The problem here is that it is being used to illustrate the person featured on the book cover. Similarly, if this was a long article, and there was a paragraph dedicated to how Trinny has written numerous books, use of the image at that point could constitute fair use (because again, it would be illustrating the book, not the person). Similarly, we could justify using a copy of a magazine's front cover featuring Tony Blair to illustrate an article about "Blair in the media", but not to illustrate Blair himself (since a free alternative could be obtained...). Equally, we could justify using a screenshot of 24 to illustrate the television series, but not to illustrate an article on guns.

The same problem would be true of any other copyrighted image which you upload under a fair use rationale, including the screenshots and BBC images which you have found. Our only real option for an image in the infobox is one licensed under a free license, and that will require someone taking one and licensing it accordingly. It may be worth having a look on fansites or flickr, and seeing if anyone who has met and photographed Trinny would be willing to license their image for us to use (if you find one, you may find Wikipedia:Example requests for permission of interest). Or you could always take a photograph yourself ;-) Easier said than done, I realise.

I hope this rather lengthy explanation helps your understanding, feel free to leave me a message if you have any queries. └UkPaolo/talk┐ 12:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - at a quick glance, you could try contacting the owners of [5], [6], [7], [8] or [9] to see if they'd re-license the images under a free license (unfortunately, all 5 are All rights reserved at present, and thus can't be used). We could always crop them more appropriately if they are re-licensed, and the photographers might be flattered by your request... you never know! └UkPaolo/talk┐ 12:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the pictures that you suggested I think that this one; [1] would be most appropriate and could be added to Trinny Woodall and Susannah Constantine's articles if we could modify. But if I'm being honest, I wouldn't know where to start in getting the free licence, but I've noticed articles such as Anna Wintour and Anna Nicole Smith both have got permission from someone on flickr to show pictures on Wikipedia. I won't follow up that flickr picture yet as I'm totally hopeless with images and will probably get too confused! Thanks for your good advice anyway, regards. Eagle Owl 15:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, flickr tends to be a good source, and if you're lucky there are some pictures on there that are already released under suitable Creative Commons licenses. Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission should help if you do choose to contact anyone. Cheers, └UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Janet Street-Porter

Eagle Owl my comment in the edit summary was not intended as a dig at anyone, rather an assumption that her birth name might look like vandalism to the uninitiated.

Cheers! Philip Cross 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fashion project ratings

No problem. You were right to upgrade the rating ... I probably screwed up as I have been trying to assess all the many unassessed articles under WP:FASH.

Would you be interested in joining the project? Daniel Case 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I added both of them plus assessments. As for Donatella, see my comments. She may be a style icon, but a) that's a subjective term in my opinion and b) not all of them are necessarily high-importance. The key thing to me is that, as I said in my assessment comments, she's doing a fine job captaining the boat but it was her late brother who built and launched it. He gets high-importance in my book. Now, fifty years from now she may be seen as equally important. But we don't have that historical perspective yet (for the same reason, I gave Anna Wintour high-importance rather than top, which she probably will merit when she retires.). Daniel Case 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/a/g/User_talk%7EEagle_Owl_d1f3.html"