User talk:Colin4C

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I´m just writing an essay on Hackney as it is referred to in Tom Hunter´s photography. As I can´t find a lot of information on the borough, I´m really glad to have your info on shoreditch, which is the district he has mostly been working on, I think. Any suggestions where I could find more? I need proper sources to name an editor and all that... thanks...

Have you looked at my 'References' in the Shoreditch article? The most up-to-date book on Shoreditch is 'More Light, More Power', by Mander. If you are in London you can find books on Hackney and Shoreditch in the Museum of London and Hackney Museum. Any particular questions you want answering?

Contents

[edit] Image removal

Please review the policy reflected in the image tag for the articles involved. At the very least FU magazine covers can not be used in articles which do not refer to the covers. My reasoning as you describe it is simply quoted from the image tag. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:FU is really explicit. A fair use magazine cover can not be used to illustrate generally the article on the person shown on it. If you add back the cover in violation of policy I will need to note this on the copyright problem notice board. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Please note that WP:FU is a guideline, not a policy. fbb_fan 01:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Ste4k

If you are fairly certain that this is the same person, you might want to consider marking Hullaballoo as a suspected sock puppet of Ste4k. I'm not familiar with Ste4k, though the start of Hullaballoo's edit histoy does coincide nicely with when Ste4k got banned. And Hullaballoo definitely dove right in at the deep end of the pool, trying to enforcing policies (or at least, one person's interpretation of them) - rather unusual for a "new" user. fbb_fan 15:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Colin, please stop making unfounded and untrue accusations concerning me. Please stop calling me names like "troll". Please stop describing my editing as a "reign of terror." It would be more helpful if you would discuss the editing differences. Rather than making uncomplimentary and uncivil personal remarks. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 17:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are responding to the comments that Colin4C posted originally on my talk page, I don't see the word "troll" used there. I'm sure you must have a good basis for making that accusation though. fbb_fan 01:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Colin4C, 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!  --WikiCats 12:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gothic Fiction

Hello Colin,

Thanks for asking. I would be interested in hearing more about it, as I do enjoy Victorian novels and Gothic fiction. Is this a cyber book club as opposed to a regular book club, where people meet in person to discuss a book? I am not sure how this works as I am a computer illiterate and only have basic skills. I have only just discovered that anyone can edit Wikipedia and find it very interesting. I live in London too, so if you run a book club here, I would be interested in joining. Regards, Natalie. Natalieduerinckx 19:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Natalieduerinckx 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project London

In stumbling around, I found Wikipedia:WikiProject_London#Participants

As a source of collaborators and support, it maybe worthwhile. Kbthompson 10:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please never insert offending sentences into other editors' user page. [1] It's considered vandalism. NCurse work 06:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Colin, I see that 'Hullaballo Wolfowitz' is back and coincidentially you have been ticked off by a recently appointed, overzealous Hungarian admin. The talk page of 'Hullaballo' clearly shows a history of confrontational behaviour and that he/she is most likely a sock puppet of 'The editor formally known as somebody or other'...See, I am getting the lingo!. Your edit history demonstrates a responsible, civilised attitude and I just wanted to state that for the record. I would avoid them if I were you, as they obviously don't have a sense of humour and you could fall foul of the PC brigade for making a joke about the ambiguous pseudonym. Natalieduerinckx 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norton Folgate

Well, this is what I can tell you:

This is confirmed by Youngs,who says that the civil parish was absorbed by Whitechapel CP in 1921

The area of Norton Folgate in relation to other parishes can be seen on this map from 1885: [2]

I've looked on the corresponding area at www.election-maps.co.uk, and although the boundaries have changed a bit, and a lot of the streets are gone, it is inside Tower Hamlets.

Lozleader 21:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dunno how authoritative this [3] is, but it says "a small part of Norton Folgate was included in the Metropolitan Borough of Shoreditch but the majority went to Stepney", which would expalin the boundary difference. There were certainly minor boundary changes, but with an area so small any change was fairly major! I note that the 1861, 1871 and 1881 censuses give it an area of 9 acres, the 1891 10 and the 1901 gives 8. [4] seems to indicate that it exchanged areas with Shoreditch in 1900 Lozleader 22:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Note also that Tower Hamlets archives have norton folgate's records [5] Lozleader 22:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
And these planning applications [6]
Ah, here we are: [7] "In 1900 a small portion of it was included in the Metropolitan Borough of Shoreditch, but the greater part of it was incorporated into Stepney."Lozleader 22:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Now chaps ... (I think), the east side of Bishopsgate went to TH, and the west to LBH; that's been more complicated because the City later pinched the Broadgate centre - and I'm not sure that didn't include a bit of ol'Norton. Of course, the west side mainly just includes railway tracks these days .... All of these boundaries are enormously fuzzy, because they get passed back and forth in the reorgs, and the ancient reasons for them have long departed.
There was a famous public house on the west side - The Sir Paul Pindar, laterly Peanuts jazz club, until rebuilding got it ... I think the frontage of the PH is in the V&A (but don't quote me on it) ... I'll have to look at the map, but some of the stuff I added to Spitalfields, about Dennis Severs should also be linked here.
  • Wood-Carving That of Sir Paul Pinder (1600), formerly in Bishopsgate, but now preserved in the Victoria and Albert Museum, is a good example of decorative treatment without overloading. The brackets carved in the shape of monsters which support the projecting upper storey are typical of hundreds of dwellings, as for instance St Peter's Hospital, Bristol. The panels, too, of Sir Paul Pinder's house should be noted. as good examples of that Jacobean form of medallion surrounded by scroll work which is at once as decorative as it is simple Kbthompson 12:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Pretty tragic that they have to destroy old historic pubs like the Sir Paul Pindar IMHO. There used to be a 'Jane Shore' pub in Shoreditch, by the way, before my time....Colin4C 12:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It'll all end in a terrible bout of footnotism, you mark my words ... God, don't touch St Katherines by the Tower, we could be here for a whole milenenia ... nah. keep it up, but do try to control the worst instincts of explaining absolutely everything ... Regardless of reality it has to be some consistent sense of history ... Fax are one thing, but don't let them get in the way of a consistent narrative! ... did I just say that? Kbthompson 23:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bram Stoker

Thanks Colin for letting me know about the new Penguin edition of Stoker's short stories. I only just got the message as my new computer is being repaired and I am offline for now. Natalieduerinckx 20:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melodrama typo

I see you reverted my correction of a typo. Was that a mistake I wonder? Regards from another archaeologist. - Kleinzach 19:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What I've done is to change the page title thereby creating a redirect - so people will get to the page however it's capitalized. I trust that's OK with you. Keep digging! - Kleinzach 22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byron

Hi, concerning your edit to vampire fiction about Byron - I think it's a bit inaccurate to say that Byron wrote a story concerning a vampire. The story he started writing (and never finished) is so fragmentary that it's difficult to say what it's about, and whether it has anything to do with vampires. Polidori expanded it into The Vampyre, but that's another thing. Here is the text that Byron wrote. Regards, --194.145.161.227 20:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but where is that account of Polidori's conversation with Byron available/published? I think it would be a good idea to cite it, and also to mention that Byron's text as it is does not indicate that the main character as a vampire. --194.145.161.227 21:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Great, I'm glad I helped to improve this bit! :) --194.145.161.227 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dracula

Don't know if this would interest you at all, but I've begun an article on Dracula (BBC). Zahir13 17:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just curious if you did indeed see this, and what you might have thought. Living in the US, I won't see the whole thing until February, although I have managed to see a few clips. Someone posted a plot summary that wasn't extremely coherent, which I tidied up some (as much as I could be looking at some other reviews online, and hoping them to be accurate). I've a friend who's ordered the DVD and offered to write up a plot summary from a NPOV after it arrives. Look forward to any thoughts or reactions you might choose to share. Zahir13 18:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the additions. I edited that section very slightly to retain the same format as I used for other Dracula adaptations (for example, listing a change rather than noting the difference between the novel and film). I was also curious what you yourself thought of the actual film as opposed to the article. Please feel free to email me at zahir13@gmail.com. Zahir13 21:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vampires. I'm not sure but I think Love At First Bite was probably the first time vampires attended a disco on film. Although one just might consider the nightclub in Ringo Starr's Son of Dracula to barely qualify.

The first "face altering" vamp I can recall is from the 1950s film Blood of Dracula (it was kinda like a female "I Was a Teenage Vampire"). The cheerleader in question became very batlike in appearance when she "vamped out." After that, I think it would be probably be the t.v. series Buffy.

I think. <g> Zahir13 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the news! Been away from the internet for a time. Zahir13 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey just wanted to say that the novel sights the only power dracula gains from his abilties as a sorcerer was the ability to comune with the dead

"The nosferatu do not die like the bee when he sting once. He is only stronger, and being stronger, have yet more power to work evil. This vampire which is amongst us is of himself so strong in person as twenty men, he is of cunning more than mortal, for his cunning be the growth of ages, he have still the aids of necromancy, which is, as his etymology imply, the divination by the dead, and all the dead that he can come nigh to are for him at command , he is brute, and more than brute, he is devil in callous, and the heart of him is not, he can, within his range, direct the elements, the storm, the fog, the thunder, he can command all the meaner things, the rat, and the owl, and the bat, the moth, and the fox, and the wolf, he can grow and become small, and he can at times vanish and come unknown."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manicmod (talk • contribs) 02:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burlesque edit

In reference to your edit to the burlesque site, for starters, you didn't cite and credible sources and I felt your explanation was meek and moot. So we can play edit wars or you can find a credible source to back your claim. Otherwise, I can change it as long as you want to go back and forth. --Signaleer 05:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please refer to the burlesque dicssion page for another comment I have posted there, please stop vandalizing site. --Signaleer 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In reference to your threat: "If you keep accusing me of vandalism I will refer you to the admins. Colin4C 16:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)" I say go for it, you are clearly deleting valid information on the Burlesque site. Let me further remind you that the defition on vandalism.

"willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others."
WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University

--Signaleer 16:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not a threat. You have breached wikipedia guidelines by referring to me as a vandal, when all I did was a reasonable edit, giving my reasons in the talk page, deleting info which is both POV and false. Deleting false and POV info is not vandalism according to wikipedia guidelines. Colin4C 16:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a reasonable nor a credible edit, your explanation for deletion has personal POV implications. Please refer to your own edits. You are helping in the "destruction of property of others" so according to my own personal point of view, you are a vandal in my eyes. --Signaleer 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in. Burlesque and tableaux girlie shows conformed to the legal situation at the time, and in their particular locale. That meant they had to titillate through suggestion, and (indeed) theatre. The phrase Colin appears to object to is simply perjurative towards modern strippers. Yes, you might be right about the sleazier sort of dive, but Colin does have a point with regard to theatres that continue the Burlesque and Vaudeville traditions, but are now allowed to go much further; examples that spring to mind are the Windmill and Moulin Rouge. I don't think the sentence would be missed, it adds nothing. Looking at the Burlesque link at the bottom of the article (a not particularly helpful external link), their new burlesque shows include strippers, who disrobe to the buff. I think if Signaleer were to rephrase so the sentence is not derogative, that would be acceptable to all. If you follow the link to striptease, you will also see examples claiming to be modern burlesque shows.
I'd also suggest you both cool down a little! Kbthompson 16:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The explanation that the user Colin4C used was a poor explanation for removing the comment. On the history tab of Burlesque the reason for the removal of the sentence was:

"(cur) (last) 12:28, 31 December 2006 Colin4C (Talk | contribs) (Deleted somewhat POV distinction between striptease and burlesque, in my experience most burlesque performers are also 'ordinary strippers' and not ashamed of the fact)"

So you're saying that your personal experience is valid enough to remove what I have said, your point of view and personal bias, is more valid than what the majority think--what I said in the first place. I think not.

If you Kbthompson, would like to edit the sentence so as not to offend the angry and immature Colin4C, by all means, please have at it. --Signaleer 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The user Kbthompson has changed the Burlesque site, please do not remove his changes, thanks. --Signaleer 17:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You (Signaleer) have unjustifiably called me a vandal (several times), 'angry' 'immature' etc etc. I have not responded in kind and have treated you with courtesy and respect. So come to your own conclusion as to who has 'thrown the toys out of the pram'. You are breaching wikipedia guidelines against personal abuse of other editors. Colin4C 17:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you want to report me, go for it. If you want to take things personal and go through the Wikipiedia "authorities" then by all means, you have that right as a user to exercise those privillages. --Signaleer 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confussion towards different topics and subjects

In reference to your comment about viewing the wiki site for the Windmill Theatre article. It has nothing to do with vaudeville or burlesque. It still does not convince me that your point of view that burlesque is merely strippers. --Signaleer 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, this discussion with me is terminated--your point about burlesque in reference to strippers is moot. Have a nice day. --Signaleer 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lenin article

There is a massive POV effort at the Lenin article in concern to the "Red Terror" section where someone is citing ridiculously partisan material. Can we have some assistance from you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FBabeuf (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Note that the above user has been reported for both 3RR and WP:SOCK. He's removing western sources and replacing them with Soviet/Russian sources, and several editors with standing have restored the western sources (while generally leaving the other edits alone). The reversion activities have revolved primarily around the removal/restoration of sources for figures used in the article. Any help or suggestions would be useful. Rklawton 19:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dracula

Hi Colin, I've been away so did not respond sooner to your message re the discussion on the Dracula talk page. I agree with your comments that there is a need for a separate Dracula article to reflect the fact that the character has evolved into a separate entity that deviates far from Stoker's creation. Information superfluous to the original novel could then be pruned from the article, resulting in a more concise piece.

By the way, I missed the new BBC adaptation over the holidays. Was it any good? Natalieduerinckx 21:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So I didn't miss much then. It will no doubt be repeated anyway. Natalieduerinckx 14:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burkers!

You wrote :-

No need to burden yourself on my account Kb.....but....Just a bit bothered about 'The Jago' (aka 'The Boundary Estate'). I guess, if it is not indeed an entity in itself, it must be in Bethnal Green, certainly over the Shoreditch boundary. 'Bethnal Green' seems such an amorphous area though....however I'm not a born and bred East-Ender, so what do I know...I was also looking unsuccesfully for a reference to the 'London Burkers' (Bishop and Head) who conducted their body-snatching activities in this area (see 'The Italian Boy' by Sarah Wise)Colin4C 10:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote Columbia Road Market. That's all I've got for the moment. NB: John Bishop and Thomas Williams. Again, information from Sarah Wise and [8]. Kbthompson 12:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please join the discussion at Talk:Anti-Catholic satire and humor

User:PelleSmith has expressed the opinion that the Spanish Inquisition routine isn't really anti-Catholic. As I have suggested before, it really belongs in an article titled something like Humor about the Catholic Church because, in my opinion, that routine isn't mean-spirited enough. The same is true of the Father Guido Sarducci routine. I'm not sure about the Father Ted series. It appears to be borderline. I may have to go borrow the DVD from the library and form a more informed opinion. --Richard 16:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britannia ...

You talking to me? Heh, you talking to me? 8^) Yes, the Britannia put on proper plays, but it opened as a music hall - and like much of the business had upmarket pretensions. They simply weren't allowed to put on proper plays until the revocation of the licensed theatre acts - which wasn't until after they opened. How do you explain the presence of music hall acts - like Vesta Tilley and Arthur Lloyd on the programme? Like with the National Standard, I think you have too narrow a definition of what constitutes music halls. Sarah Lane was definitely a showgirl, not a Thespian.

BTW: I think the actual music hall article would benefit from sub-sections, the development page is now way too long. Try by Saloon style, theatre style and Edwardian - and you'll see the Britannia presages a lot of those developments.

So, is it to be settled by kippers at dawn?Kbthompson 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

These early saloons were the forerunners of the music halls, having a particular licence which, whilst preventing the performance of Shakespeare, allowed the consumption of food and drink. 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The old saloon was closed in 1858, and some adjacent houses were bought, on the site of which the Britannia Theatre arose. Here every variety of entertainment was given ----"Pepper's Ghost," giants, acrobats, swimmers, Tom King, the pugilist, &-co. (ibid) Kbthompson 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

On 15 July 1867, play 4 on the bill at the Britannia was Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, written by a certain W.Shakespeare. Monsieur Elliot and Mademoiselle Frederika, the champion skaters of England provided the entertainment, together with George Buckstone, the celebrated comic vocalist from the Alhambra Palace, and Mr and Mrs P. McHaffie, the original funny couple.
Apropos of nothing, I love the play performed from 16-23 Sept 1895 - Did you ever send your wife to Chingford? Kbthompson 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whitechapel

Hello. Please see the Talk page for Whitechapel. Thx. JDG 09:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How's it hanging, you've been awfully quiet lately, quite unlike you? (Actually, that goes for both of you!) Kbthompson 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaiety Theatre, London

Gaiety Theatre, London is being rewritten, not badly, but it has a very American PoV, you may wish to cast a beady and critical eye over it! Kbthompson 16:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You must take a look at Knights Templar and related areas, for the unholy row that's breaking out; if only for the fact it doesn't involve you. Somebody is insisting on their modern existence. Kbthompson 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Stepney & Whitechapel music halls, poss of interest. Kbthompson 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dracula

Hi Colin, I noticed your comments on the Dracula talk page. I'm glad to see you are back maintaining rigorous academic standards as well as guarding the page from the goths! My feeling is that Stoker had extensive knowledge of the period, but used his artistic licence to facilitate the plot. It is fascinating to see how he combined history and folklore to create a seminal work of literature. The subtext of Stoker's somewhat ambivalent experience as an 'Anglo-Irish' man during a period of emerging Irish nationalism, (rather like Le Fanu) only adds to the richness of the text...By the way I am the same Natalie, I changed my name to a pseudonym for privacy reasons. Natalie West 01:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navigation box

Template:West End Theatres has been added to West End (and Beyond West End) theatres, it appears at the bottom of the page. I doubt the benefit to roll out to all the Fringe and Suburban theatres, but they are listed. Pls let me know if you have any comments. The idea came from a 'linked to' in someone's user area, but the code for this was nicked from WWII! When I have sufficiently recovered, I shall consider doing one for former theatres of London. Kbthompson 00:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why do you keep removing my list of gothic quailities??

title says it all Smashman2004 (talk • contribs • email) 19:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if you would call my teacher a source then yes, however the list of 'qualities' are not actually qualities at all! Smashman2004 (talk • contribs • email) 20:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and citation practice

Please see User talk:JPD - item added today. Cosmopolitancats 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5000 up

For some bizarre reason, this appears to be my 5,000th edit. Kbthompson 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Catholicism category

Since you have contributed to the anti-Catholicism article, I thought you might want to participate in the discussion on the category anti-Catholicism which is being considered for deletion here. Mamalujo 19:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti's

I'm just curious, what would be your interest in a deletion review for Category:Anti-Islam sentiment and Category:Anti-Mormonism. I have contacted the closing admins to see if they would overturn their deletions based on the keep/no consensus outcome of all the other anti-religion categories, and they both refused. So, because you left strong, emotional comments on my talk page regarding the other CfDs, I was wondering your opinion on deletion review for the 2 that actually got deleted. Thanks.-Andrew c 14:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Werewolf fiction

Thanks for your support. I've removed DreamGuy's trouble-making fake template. He tripped a bunch of my watched pages with extremely questionable edits a couple of weeks ago, and ever since I reverted those he's been accusing me of being a wiki-stalker and he has been going around to pages I regularly edit to make trouble, while claiming that I'm doing the exact same thing to him. His tendency is to remove most or all external links from an article, and then claim that the removed ones were spam and the kept ones were not, even if the reverse is true, and he brings friends to back him up on talk pages. He gets pretty shrill so I took a time out. I'm surprised to see that he's still vigorously defacing my favorite articles. Sorry you got dragged into the middle of this. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whitechapel killer

Hello Colin. I have read in many, many places that the title "Whitechapel Killer" preceded the title "Jack the Ripper", and can think of no better place to mention this than in the Whitechapel article... Just randomly, here's a sentence from a "dissertation" (at http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rippercussions.html ) that shows this: "And it was the Dear Boss letters which gave the killer this 'trade name', as he put it, which was far catchier than the previous 'Leather Apron' or 'The Whitechapel Killer'."... What is your source for believing this is "false information"? Thx, JDG 14:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DreamGuy

Thanks for the heads-up on Werewolf fiction. I've put in my two cents on the talk page. If DreamGuy keeps edit warring against the talk page concensus, we should eventually notify an administrator. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I suspect that your Whitechapel Murders article is a victim of a Dreamguy sockpuppet. I have reopened the checkuser request on him. Jack1956 (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dreamguy anon IP has been blocked for 3 months.[9] Jack1956 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oh my god .... what a week

Had a bad wiki-week, but eventually watched Marie Lloyd, a bit factually inaccurate - right down to substituting a gay dresser for Bella Orchard. Burlington Bertie was primarily Vesta Tilley. Kbthompson 11:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And it gets worse, Oh! What a Lovely War (1969), any evidence of it before then? Kbthompson 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ella Shields

Shouldn't list it in the article, they have a downer on u-tube. Kbthompson 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Guerillas and Rushdie

I went to the history page and reviewed your previous post about the movie before it got whittled down to the sparse lines I discovered you had written half-way through putting up a new segment about the film. I think what upset the other editor was the mention of the Batman costumes. I haven’t seen the movie but read several summaries plus pictures and descriptions (including the part about the Batman costumes) were on http://weirdostuff.blogspot.com/2005/12/pakistani-jihad-musicals-vol1.html. I focused the segment on the films portrayal of Rushdie and gave two quotes from him about the film, I think it will stand because it not only reveals the level of hate the majority of Pakistani’s had for him at the time, but also Rushdie’s opposition to censorship even over works unflattering to himself. A separate article could also be created on the film that would go fully in depth about all the weirdness of the picture – i.e. the Batman suits, the singing, the bizarre disguises, etc. and then a Main Article link to that page could be placed next to the segment on the Rushdie page. I think as long as the main focus in the segment on the Rushdie page is about the portrayal of him and his actual reaction to it the segment won’t be deleted. I was surprised that someone else had already mentioned the film and that it somehow got regulated beneath his cameo in the Bridget Jones’ Diary picture – If someone made a film about me getting murdered and people cheered over it when they saw it, I would consider that a hell of a lot more notable then me giving Hugh Grant directions to the bathroom.

--Wowaconia 16:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lamest edit wars

You may be interested in reading one of my favorite links on Wikipedia, after the Striptease issue: Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. --David Shankbone 13:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Count Dracula

Colin4C, please see Wikipedia:Hatnote on when appropiate dabs are necessary. Know that undo revisions without an explanation mean that you are reverting vandalism. My edit was obviously not vandalism that you had to undo without explaning why. Your revert, however, deemed unconstructive. Assume good faith the next time yet discuss first why you believe those disambiguation dabs are needed. They are more fitted in a see also section or have them placed in the paragraph(s) of the article. Take your time to read those policies / guidelines / manual-of-styles and get back to me on the subject. Lord Sesshomaru

I did vote and even commented at Talk:Dracula and there was no official consensus regarding the usage of dabs that must reside at the top. That information can be found at the see also section, which you reverted. Either show me the link(s) to what you're saying or revert to my version.
And by the way, the closing user stated that consensus was: "The novel is the primary and original usage here. Anything else should be disambiguated." Nothing in that line hinted that dabs must be placed at the top, I think you're misunderstanding this. Have you read WP:HAT? Lord Sesshomaru
I implore you to please respond at the talk page of Count Dracula (since you didn't get back to me) and do not revert all of the edits I have just done to the page. Discuss before reverting. Lord Sesshomaru

[edit] Civility

Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism in a content dispute, like you did here. This is considered incivil. Thank you. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 15:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you comment at the very bottom of here instead of undo my edit. Let's solve this here once and for all. Lord Sesshomaru
What, me? I didn't undo any edit. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 16:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I was talking to Colin4C, not you Melsaran. Should have been more direct, sorry. Lord Sesshomaru
No problem, although next time you might rather not add a colon before your message, because then it doesn't "thread" correctly. Using a blank line seems like a separate comment, using a colon seems like a reply to my message. ;-) Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 19:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Catholicism

Thank you for your recent contributions to the article on Anti-Catholicism. I was once told that the state of Florida had passed, in the early 20th century, a statute requiring inspections, or whatever, of the residents of Catholic priests with nearby convents, to ensure that the "tunnel" that the priest had constructed between his residence and his presumed harem (!) was blocked. I cannot find a reference to this online. Apparently the legislature of the time was persuaded of the veracity of this incredible statement to actually pass a law. This was concurrent with various lynchings in the south in the late 19th which maybe continued into the 20th century. Student7 21:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

Melsaran has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Bishopsgate

Bishopsgate .... WYSIWUG .... Kbthompson 17:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the East End

Having survived a week predominantly spent fixing esoteric templates, and facing a review of the East End article - apparently GA reviews aren't for life, even if the article hasn't changed much from the previous one. I'm thinking of taking East End to FA. I want to add more on the history of the docks, more on the Jews and Huguenots (probably more on the Irish, neglected and important), but then I'm at an impasse. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbthompson (talk • contribs) 13:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A combination of your interests

[10] I don't know if that link will work (to Google books), but that page successfully combines Oscar Wilde, Weston's Music Hall, Vesta Tilley, the Gothick and Chatterton .... I'm not sure if the reference can be woven into any of the above, particularly as Vesta Tilley would have been about 12 when it was published! Kbthompson 17:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It must be your newly acquired good looks and patience ... they are biding their time, to hit you when you appear weak, or have to struggle on five fronts at once. The post-codists are on strike, the doh, I know it says London Borough, but I still live in Essex brigade have fled to warmer clims. There are still people around who are claiming that Westminster's city status somehow prevents it being a London boro'. There's enough vandalism to go around, but I suspect the US seven year olds have lost interest in saying poo everywhere. There are still the perennial battles between inclusionists and exclusionists ... for some reason Opera buffs seem particularly prone to arguing the toss about how many tutus can dance on the head of a pin. I can probably drop you in the midst of a good argument, if you really want one? There are a lot of good people who seem to have disappeared too. Did that link (above) work, fascinating .... If you're bored, you could take a look at Folly Theatre and Charing Cross Music Hall - two I knocked up earlier ...
There's a lot around Hungerford Hall, Hungerford Market, and Charing Cross that needs looking into. The former is, I think, particularly wrong. Much of the web stuff says the hall was adjacent to the market, but BritHist online says it was a school above the market, that was converted to a pub, that was converted to a music hall (the original Gattis) - still trying to marshal the facts so they stand up coherently, the second of those seems to be a knock off of BritHist, so needs more sources and what the guy wrote checking. I think his summarising skills leave something to be desired. Kingsland, London was something Fahey knocked up, and there are complaints it's too chatty; needs looking at before someone just deletes it. I've got a meeting today where some money might be freed up, which means I will probably go uncharacteristically quiet again ... while I herd the cats and get some work done in the real world! Kbthompson 09:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ripper edits

I think you are doing fine. The other editor probably has some ego tied up intot hat edit, and he will even tually learn how consensus works. Just make sure your citations are spot on, and the article will proceed as it should. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jack the Ripper. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 19:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreamguy

Why have you attacked me rather than problem editor Dreamguy? Does this mean nothing?: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. Dreamguy has been tyrannising over other editors for months and you attack his victims! No doubt you will now block me for standing up to wiki-bullies as admins usually do. Colin4C 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no attacking involved. Both of you were edit warring, so I warned both of you about the WP:3RR. And whether or not there has been an arbitration case against him, you cannot use that as an argument for or against the merits of his contributions. Stop edit warring and please discuss civilly on talk. Gscshoyru 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page of the Jack the Ripper page you will see long, no doubt boring, discussions of the facts of the matter by me to which Dreamguy has not responded. Colin4C 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Then do an RFC, or report him the the 3RR noticeboard after warning him about it. But don't violate it yourself, and don't edit war. Gscshoyru 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to state that I am actually interested in the subject of Jack the Ripper and have read many books about the subject. If you look at my edit history you will see the positive contribution I have made to the wikipedia. Dreamguy has already deleted your comment on his talk page, by the way, as is his wont. (I have never ever deleted any comments on my talk page - is that a merit?). Colin4C 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh. You've probably never been trolled before, then -- the history of my talk page is somewhat interesting, with all the anti-vandalism work I do I get a number of interesting comments that can only be removed. And you theoretically should archive, not remove -- but since it's always still visible in the history, it doesn't actually make any difference. Gscshoyru 19:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to say again that Dreamguy has made THREE reverts. I have made two. I have discussed the issues on the Talk page and he has not. I have obeyed wikipedia rules and he has flouted them. Does that count for nothing? Colin4C 19:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Looks like I was counting a vandalism revert as an edit-warring revert. So you theoretically have one revert left, but it would be much better to discuss it than to revert again. But he needs to actually partake in the discussion, here... hm. I need to take a closer look at this. Gscshoyru 19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music hall revisted

Since you've obviously got too much time on your hands, I've thrown Music hall to the wolves and nominated it for WP:GA status. It's nearly there, but let's see what comments emerge. Kbthompson 19:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice extension of sections, but we're going to have to convert all those lists into nice unctuous prose to get it through FA. There might even be some sub-articles struggling to get out of that article. Did you get around to expanding East End in literature? I've got Her Majesty's going through GA at the moment, but it should be next on my list ... We also need to get back to Jack now the furour has died down. I've put a lot into anti-vandalism recently, there's nothing quite so satisfying as watching them ignore all the warnings and then block the b*stards! Kbthompson (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I ordered a second hand copy of the book - together with the Theatre history directory. Since they might be useful. Can't find Roy Hudd's book anywhere, might pop in the British Library and if it's any good order it from the local one. Kbthompson (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I walked thru the door and Benny was waiting for me, together with the Guide to British Theatres; I might add that as a reference to all the London ones. Also got the complete Gilbert and Sullivan to listen to! Kbthompson (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Still no progress on these things, the more you admin, the less you write ... is this still a place to come for civilised conversation where the natives don't shout at each other? Kbthompson (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You can't blame the natives for being restless. Unlike us Brits they do not have the benefit of Earl Grey Tea to sooth their nerves of a night. Hence the tom tom drums and cannibilism etc. Colin4C (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The natives recently sat down together to share a large dish of humble pie, so maybe they can learn the benefits of civilisation; and play nicely without casting long pointy aspersions at each other - now, if only we can reattach the missing hair ...
I did finish Benny, and had a number of ideas for revising Music Hall - I've now started City of Laughter which provides a number of ideas for moving forward on West End - but actually finding the time to sit down and write this stuff is proving problematic. I still haven't had the time to go down and see the JtR exhibition - which is a must.
I do need to get my metaphorical pen dirty soon, maybe stick up a GAn, or a FAn and fight over words, rather than brickbats. toodle-pip Kbthompson (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack the Ripper

Hi. Your reversion here undid a lot of minor formatting work I did to the article. If you read Help:Reverting, you'll see it has Improve the edit, rather than reverting it. (bolding in original). I also found your edit summary rather uncivil. Can you please discuss changes in talk, refrain from making comments on editors and refrain from reverting the good faith additions of others? Thank you. --John 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Colin, you can't do that. there are a great many ways to find consensus, and reverting back massively is no more acceptable by you than it is when done by DreamGuy. there are other editors working in the article, and all of them - DG included - deserve the opportunity to find a consensus with his edits as well. If you don't like the guy, please repress that dislike while you edit, as it is clouding your judgment - you are acting in precisely the way the DG was. You need to step back a little bit and reapproach this. If you disagree with his citations, use the discussion page to do so. If you feel your citations are better, you need to post that, too. You do not attempt to achive consensus at the point of an edit summary and edit-war. Please use the Discussion area for the valuable tool that it is. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs

For copyright reasons, I don't think we can use these, but you may like to check out the Lafayette Collection, for interest. They're direct from negative, and it's unusual to see such quality images for the period. Cheers. Kbthompson 10:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Whitechapel Murders

The Whitechapel murders were a series of eleven unsolved brutal murders of women committed in Whitechapel, London between 1888 and 1891. Some or all of them have been ascribed to the mysterious individual known as Jack the Ripper.

[edit] The Murders

1. Emma Elizabeth Smith, born c. 1843, was attacked in Osborn Street, Whitechapel April 3, 1888, and a blunt object was inserted into her vagina, rupturing her perineum. She survived the attack and managed to walk back to her lodging house with the injuries. Friends brought her to a hospital where she told police that she was attacked by two or three men, one of whom was a teenager. She fell into a coma and died on April 5, 1888. This was the first "Whitechapel Murder," according to the book Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates by Stewart Evans and David Rumbelow.[1]

2. Martha Tabram (name sometimes misspelled as Tabran; used the alias Emma Turner; maiden name Martha White), born on May 10, 1849, and killed on August 7, 1888. She had a total of 39 stab wounds. Of the non-canonical Whitechapel murders, Tabram is named most often as another possible Ripper victim, owing to the evident lack of obvious motive, the geographical and periodic proximity to the canonical attacks, and the remarkable savagery of the attack. The main difficulty with including Tabram is that the killer used a somewhat different modus operandi (stabbing, rather than slashing the throat and then cutting), but it is now accepted that a killer's modus operandi can change, sometimes quite dramatically. Her body was found at George Yard Buildings, George Yard, Whitechapel.[2]

3. Mary Ann Nichols (maiden name Mary Ann Walker, nicknamed "Polly"), born on August 26, 1845, and killed on August 31, 1888. Nichols' body was discovered at about 3:40 in the morning on the ground in front of a gated stable entrance in Buck's Row (since renamed Durward Street), a back street in Whitechapel, two hundred yards from the London Hospital. [3]

4. Annie Chapman (maiden name Eliza Ann Smith, nicknamed "Dark Annie"), born in September 1841 and killed on September 8, 1888. Chapman's body was discovered about 6:00 in the morning lying on the ground near a doorway in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, Spitalfields. [4]

5. Elizabeth Stride (maiden name Elisabeth Gustafsdotter, nicknamed "Long Liz"), born in Sweden on November 27, 1843, and killed on September 30, 1888. Stride's body was discovered close to 01:00 in the early morning, lying on the ground in Dutfield's Yard, off Berner Street (since renamed Henriques Street) in Whitechapel. The third of the canonical five.

6. Catherine Eddowes (used the aliases "Kate Conway" and "Mary Ann Kelly," from the surnames of her two common-law husbands Thomas Conway and John Kelly), born on April 14, 1842, and killed on September 30, 1888, on the same day as the previous victim, Elizabeth Stride. Her body was found in Mitre Square, in the City of London.

7. Mary Jane Kelly (called herself "Marie Jeanette Kelly" after a trip to Paris, nicknamed "Ginger"), reportedly born in either the city of Limerick or County Limerick, Munster, Ireland c. 1863 and killed on November 9, 1888. Kelly's severely mutilated body was discovered shortly after 10:45 in the morning lying on the bed in the single room where she lived at 13 Miller's Court, off Dorset Street, Spitalfields.

8. Rose Mylett (true name probably Catherine Mylett, but was also known as Catherine Millett, Elizabeth "Drunken Lizzie" Davis, "Fair" Alice Downey, or simply "Fair Clara"), born in 1862 and died on December 20, 1888. She was reportedly strangled "by a cord drawn tightly round the neck," though some investigators believed that she had accidentally suffocated herself on the collar of her dress while in a drunken stupour. Her body was found in Clarke's Yard, High Street, Poplar.

9. Alice McKenzie (nicknamed "Clay Pipe" Alice and used the alias Alice Bryant), a prostitute, born circa 1849 and killed on July 17, 1889. She reportedly died from the "severance of the left carotid artery" but several minor bruises and cuts were found on the body. Her body was found in Castle Alley, Whitechapel. Police Commissioner James Monro initially believed this to be a Ripper murder and one of the pathologists examining the body, Dr Bond, agreed, though later writers have been more circumspect. Evans and Rumbelow suggest that the unknown murderer tried to make it look like a Ripper killing to deflect suspicion from himself.[5]

10. "The Pinchin Street Murder," a term coined after a torso was found in similar condition to the body which constituted "The Whitehall Mystery," though the hands were not severed, on September 10, 1889. The body was found under a railway arch in Pinchin Street, Whitechapel. An unconfirmed speculation of the time was that the body belonged to Lydia Hart, a prostitute who had disappeared. "The Whitehall Mystery" and "The Pinchin Street Murder" have often been suggested to be the work of a serial killer, for which the nicknames "Torso Killer" or "Torso Murderer" have been suggested. Whether Jack the Ripper and the "Torso Killer" were the same person or separate serial killers of uncertain connection to each other (but active in the same area) has long been debated.[6]

11. Frances Coles (also known as Frances Coleman, Frances Hawkins and nicknamed "Carrotty Nell"), born in 1865 and killed on February 13, 1891. Minor wounds on the back of the head suggest that she was thrown violently to the ground before her throat was cut. Otherwise there were no mutilations to the body. Her body was found under a railway arch at Swallow Gardens, Whitechapel. A man named James Sadler, seen earlier with her, was arrested by the police and charged with her murder, and was briefly thought to be the Ripper himself. However he was discharged from court due to lack of evidence on 3 March 1891. After this eleventh and last "Whitechapel Murder" the case was closed.[7]

[edit] The Police Investigation

The investigation into the Whitechapel murders was initially conducted by Whitechapel (H) Division C.I.D. headed by Detective Inspector Edmund Reid. After the Nichols murder Detective Inspectors Frederick Abberline, Henry Moore and Walter Andrews were sent from Central Office at Scotland Yard to assist. After the Eddowes murder, which occurred within the City of London, the City Police under Detective Inspector James McWilliam were also engaged. The murderer or murderers were never found and the case remains unsolved to this day.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow (2006) Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates: 47-50
  2. ^ Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow (2006) Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates: 51-55
  3. ^ Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow (2006) Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates: 56-62
  4. ^ Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow (2006) Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates: 66-73
  5. ^ Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow (2006) Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates: 205-09
  6. ^ Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow (2006) Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates: 210-15
  7. ^ Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow (2006) Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates: 218-22

[edit] Further Reading

Stewart P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow (2006) Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates. Sutton: Stroud.

[edit] November 2007

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Gothic fiction: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Jauerback 15:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whitechapel murders

DreamGuy has commented on my talk page that your article at Whitechapel murders is a POV fork in violation of WP:CFORK, and I'm afraid I see his point. While the article was created a while before the current disputes, it does get to the center of one of the key disputes that got the main ripper article protected. DreamGuy has redirected the article to the main ripper article for now, as it was before April. I would ask you to please not undo the redirect for now, because it does indeed give at least the appearence of one side in the debate trying to have their desired outcome exist elsewhere in the project even if it cannot exist in the main ripper article. Please let the RFC proceed, and hopefully this issue can be dealt with in that as well, without a new revert war erupting on this side-article. - TexasAndroid 17:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

see crimes at the metropolitan police museum site. The Whitechapel murders are not the same thing as those attributed to Jack the Ripper. The latter are a subset of the former. Kbthompson 15:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East End

Hi, your (blame you, it's easier and you're used to it) section on Literature, etc. is causing problems at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/East End of London, if there's any time you can spend on fixing and expanding the section, I would appreciate it. Kbthompson 15:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

East End of London, is now a featured article. Thank you for all your contributions. Let's face it, you couldn't have done it without me! Kbthompson (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
With all the seriousness that keeps flying around recently, can I make quite absolutely clear that I meant that satirically .... Kbthompson (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dracula entry

Many thanks for including the additional refs regarding the views of Victorian vs 20th Century readers on this work--I'm sure there'll always be a diversity of opinion about the novels' influence on contemporary and later readers, and the article now reflects thats well. Malljaja (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent JTR edit

Colin, that comment doesn't help matters. I know that you don't like DG, but you cannot descend to what you feel is his level and take pot-shots at him at every given opportunity. If you want to blame anyone for the admins not taking action on the ArbCom enforcement complaint, blame me. I hadn't prepared one before and made it too long for the overworked folk at ArbCom to focus on. Jay is right; focus on the article. Being polite only helps you, and tends to highlight any incivility and personal attack posture of any other user. Please ease off the snipes; it just puts DG on the defensive, and he tends to become more abrasive when he's feeling put-upon. If he can correct his behavior he will. If he cannot, he will self-destruct eventually. In the meantime, just do your own thing. You bring a lot to the table when it comes to the article; focus on that, and not on how DG is acting. Clearly, nothing we can do will serve to alter his perception of himself, his edits or his world.
Towards that end, I think you should withdraw your remark from the discussion as off-topic. Can you do that? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you might need to take a break from DreamGuy, Colin. No one has the ability to destroy you unless you give them the tools and the permission to do so. You have allowed him to get under your skin, and you seem to be having trouble seeing him for the person he is. He has destroyed my faith in him by socking and not manning up about it, and can understand your resentment that he hasn't been shown the wiki-door. People like that invariably their own worst enemy; I am mine, DreamGuy is his and you are yours. By allowing DG to upset you, you are giving him the tools he needs to marginalize you. So stop it, okay?
Actually, when I say withdraw, I usually mean to remove the post - a person is allowed to self-revert, especially in response to a request for civility. I will defend that and support its removal, as would any admin.
So, self-revert and go relax and watch the snow fall or football or cook something - take your min d off of WP for the day and simply relax. Undoubtedly, you will be having a better day than DG can. Gobble, gobble... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I am not suggesting you are bad faith editor. Its just that we all have other editors that make us want to visit savage unpleasantness upon them. DG appears to be yours (and quite a few other people's it would appear). You are a fine editor; you editing in proximity with DG tend to lose your grip. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Good, i'll keep an eye on the page. If he puts it ack in, make sure to explain in your one and only revert that you are withdrawing argumentative remarks. that protects you. have a good day. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, my intent was to help you withdraw or back off from your remarks so as to help remove any inclination for DG to act defensively. I used strikethrough, since DG reinstated the remarks (for reasons I suspect will amount to him trying eventually to have you removed from Wikipedia). I am sorry that you did not see my action as helpful on your behalf. If you have not unstricken the post, I will do so.

Seeing as we are approaching this issue form differing perspectives, I think that it might be better for me to remove myself as a factor in your issues with DG. You are a good editor, but you aren't really pursuing any of those stronger actions I prescribed to de-escalate your interactions with DG. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, and he doesn't approach it like that; it is a battle to be won against the Unbelievers. Your actions are starting to resemble his in that you consistently respond to his goading with goading, his insults with insults, and his petty complaints with petty complaints. You need to find a way back to your happy place, or your interactions with DreamGuy are going to ruin Wikipedia for you.
Of course, that is just my opinion - take it or leave it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
With regard to the current changes and image added, you might be well advised to do nothing, but watch the shenanigans when u-no-oo is back in the frame ... Kbthompson (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd let it settle down before making major changes - but unlike you I don't engage in edit wars! Kbthompson (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music hall

... is now a Good Article. I hope that makes you feel a little better about the value of your contributions to wikipedia. ... Illegitimi Non Carborundum Kbthompson (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw that! Congrats, Colin. I went in a bit and removed some redlinkage, but it was a fun article to read, with nice images. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Post

I've reverted your recent posting in the JTR article discussion, Colin. It wasn't helpful and could easily be perceived as a personal attack on DreamGuy. Why give that jerk ammo to get you banned. I must insist that you stop attacking DreamGuy. The only way to highlight his negative behavior is to make sure it is the only negative behavior in the discussion. I think you are a nice guy, but if you cannot rein in your own behavior, you are likely going to be blocked. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Our arcane friend is right (well here anyway, I would hardly give him the satisfaction elsewhere). It doesn't do any good to bang your head against a brick wall. Contributions like that just make you look like the bad guy - and I know you're not. He's lawyered up, seeking to trap you and it's no good shouting ... but don't you think you're a bit of a bastard for running me over, then reversing back to see if you can do it again..
Take a break from JtR, do something cheerful like hang out with your Goth friends, damn, OK, let's do some positive Music hall. Above all, do anything that makes you feel better! You're a winner, not a whiner! Do not get drawn into playing games that someone else chooses. Kbthompson 00:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Colin, you are doing it again. This is not an acceptable use of the article discussion page. It is precisely the sort of personal attack-ish, disruptive behavior we would see from another user on that page. I think we are at the point where you have to ask yourself if you are going to be able to edit professionally with DreamGuy. If you cannot, i must ask you to withdraw, as your behavior is disruptive, and you know that the editor in question will take utter joy in having you blocked and therefore marginalized. If you want to give him that satisfaction, continue adding edits like that.
If you are willing to work constructively, please try that series of posts again. I would suggest you self delete your additions and re-add non-attack versions of them very, very quickly, before the other editor has a chance to respond. As well, do not mix them within the edits of Stephan's edits (as refactoring another's posts alone can get you blocked). I urge you to decide how you are going to approach this article discussion and decide rather quickly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm with Colin on this one. It's a straight statement of the issues. I, for one, was horrified that DG was just allowed to eliminate any mention of the Whitechapel murders. I think it would however help if Colin could manage to backpedal on the strong sense of miffedness and injustice. Just keep it on the content and move forward. Kbthompson (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I am over-estimating DG's willingness to respond poorly. I guess we shall see. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vampire revival...

Hey Colin, do you think you could get a RS cite for the last cite tag on a current increased interest in vamp films? I was also wondering whether there was one on how there were more films about vamp communities (Underworld, Daywatch, 30 days of night etc.) or not yet...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahaaa, nice one. Nice icing on the cake at the end of a looonnng article :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the sentence you've re-added still makes no sense. The end finishes with "still reigns supreme". Then you ask, what reigns supreme? It's not vampires, because if you re-read the sentence they are mentioned as a side note - "The continuing and growing popularity of the vampire theme has been ascribed to displays of sexuality, which have become more accessible, acceptible and overt in our internet technology age; combined with the perennial dread of mortality, something which no modern technology can overcome, in which the domain of myth, metaphor and magic, represented by the figure of the vampire and of the undead, still reigns supreme".
Have you actually though about what you've written? Here's what it reads: "The popularity of vampires is because of the displays of sexuality which can be easily accessed now. It's also because of the fear of death, something we cannot escape, in which the area of myth, metaphor and magic which are represented by the vampire and undead, still reigns supreme." That makes no freakin' sense - it really starts going haywire around the "in which" where it changes the subject of the sentence from the dread of mortality to the undead and vampire in the domain of myth. I went to the university I shift at and asked a couple of my professors to check it over. 2 went "WTF" and the other said it wasn't well put. Not to get down on you, but can you please re-write the sentence. I mean, talking about the internet and modern technology at the end of an article which is all about past legends and mentions nothing of the modern world (Bar a few movies) is not good practise.
If it take me this long to decipher the sentence to no avail, how's some highschool-level student (Which is the general writing level for most articles and certainly the rest of this article) going to even understand this? Others made adjustments to your sentence and you just reverted back to the previous version. Please, I don't want to be the bad guy so can you re-write it? Otherwise, I'm going to be bold and rewrite it. I can sit easy with a sentence like that, no matter how many citations it has. You have the skills easily, so I'm sure rewriting a sentence like that will be easy riight? I mean, I haven't heard anyone else spin words the way you do. :) Cheers and Merry Xmas! Spawn Man (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Not only does the sentence still not make sense, but neither does your reply! Obviously your intellect is far beyond my own comprehension. Still, I've worked on this article for around 2+ months and I've gotten a good feeling for the article. Your addition is simply too advanced. It's at about a university level and although I get the meaning, the following bit makes no sense: "...combined with the perennial dread of mortality, something which no modern technology can overcome, in which the domain of myth, metaphor and magic, represented by the figure of the vampire and of the undead, still holds sway." The "still holds sway" is referring to the "perennial dread of mortality" because you've confused the subjects. So basically the whole last part is saying that there's a dread of mortality, in which there's the realm of myth lead by the vampire, holds sway. I know you want your awesome high level writing in the article but the fact of the matter is 1) It's too advanced for the rest of the article. 2) It's talking about technology and the internet which is weird for an article primarily based in medieval times and 3) It makes no sense. I doesn't matter how many semicolons or word changes you put or make, the whole sentence structure needs reworking. Please don't let pride get in the way - I'm sure we can meet a compromise, but so far, you've changed two words which equal basically the same as the old ones. Frankly, I don't even know if we need an ending summary. Spawn Man (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. You placed your messages in the wrong place, I've moved them to my main talk page.

[edit] Friends...?

*Coo coo... Be friends... Coo coo...*
*Coo coo... Be friends... Coo coo...*

Hopefully we can put "the sentence" saga behind us and be peaceful when and if we meet again? :) I hope the experience hasn't put you off wikipedia and I sincerly hope you continue to edit here. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel Murders

Thanks for the note on my Talk page. I am going to check out your articles today and reread all of the comments regarding the whole Jack the Ripper versus Whitechapel Murders discussion. I'll let you know my opinion as soon as I have one. - Stephoswalk (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Striptease. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You may wish to ...

  1. . Cleanup your page by moving the saved text to sub-pages in your own user space (eg User talk:Colin4C/Whitechapel Murders. You can delete them later when there's some consensus on what's to be done.
  2. . Waste some time on TURTLE'S "78 RPM" JUKEBOX

All the best Kbthompson (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which which passed nem. con. with 45 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thank you for your support and all the kind words that were expressed. I will try to live up to the trust placed in me by the community. I now have my homework to do and then pass the Marigolds.
... and if I could have told you about it, I'm sure you would have! Kbthompson (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Don't know if this is of interest, I only just heard about it:

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kbthompson (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I saw this and thought of you ...

This editor has made a section of links about occasions when people have found reason to call him/her names. Absolutely perfect for you ... Kbthompson (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification

Which IPs do you believe are DreamGuy's? I haven't been following the specific article, but if you have additional information about other anons that he has been using, I would be interested in seeing it. --Elonka 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, DreamGuy has been blocked for a few days,[11] since it was obvious that he was gaming the system. So, the question now is if anything new happens. If you see those IPs editing, or you see any other IPs which you think are his, please make sure to bring it up, preferably with an exact diff. My understanding is that from now on (after the block is up), he should be editing only on the DreamGuy account, and only as long as he can remain civil. As long as he adheres to those guidelines (sticking to one account, and treating other editors with good faith), I'm fine on him continuing to edit on Wikipedia. If he doesn't, we can ask ArbCom to take another look. --Elonka 19:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, saw it. It's really a borderline situation. On the one hand, he's still using the anon even though he was told not to. On the other, he's only using it to post at his user talkpage, so he's not really overstepping the bounds of his block, as those who are blocked are still allowed to post on their talkpages. Then again, it's clearly a bad faith and uncivil comment. Then again, he's blocked, and there's a certain expectation that those who are blocked, are going to be cranky.  ;) I'll point it out to someone else to get an uninvolved opinion, but my initial reaction is to ignore it. As long as he's limited to just posting on user talkpages, he's not being disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole. If he uses the account to edit articles though, in violation of his block, then yes, that would be a problem. --Elonka 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Dew

Thanks for your help with this article. Jack1956 (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whitechapel Murders of 1888

  • I think the article is absolutely brilliant and is much-needed as it fills a gap in Ripperology regarding canonical and non-canonical victims. It is thoroughly researched and fully sourced and is an excellent piece of work. Jack1956 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Colin4C (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have taken the liberty of adding a few images to your article. Hope you don't mind. Jack1956 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that a separate article for the Whitechapel Murders is an excellent idea, and long overdue. Revmagpie (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ripper article version

Since Texas Android fiddled with the article, does it look like the Jawsweet version now? It's hard to compare them, as the subpage is gone now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy & paste move

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of Mysterious Warnings and pasted it into The Mysterious Warning, a German Tale. This is what we call a "cut and paste move," and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Russ (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vampire is now featured!

I hereby award you the "(Poorly drawn) Vampire Barnstar", because as you may know, Vampire is now a Featured Article and I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to the article or its FAC in order to get this goal. You really helped! Spawn Man (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I hereby award you the "(Poorly drawn) Vampire Barnstar", because as you may know, Vampire is now a Featured Article and I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to the article or its FAC in order to get this goal. You really helped! Spawn Man (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In response to your post at Anti-Americanism AfD

An alleged concept (that happens to be undefinable). Whether or not it is an actually concept isn't the issue. The point was that it's not a concrete thing, as opposed to an atom. That was my point. No need to mock anyone. Thanks, нмŵוτнτ 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Onibaba

Hi. I just posted on the discussion page for the Onibaba article with a question for you. Can you please respond there? THANX..... Z Wylld (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Main Page

You really should check out the main page featured article tomorrow.

(Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 23, 2008). All the best. Kbthompson (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Published in the field??

User:Arcayne, while trying to rationalize why your claims should be taken at face value, said that you were published in the field of Ripper studies and therefore know more than anyone else here. I'd be very curious about just who you are and what you had published... I know most everyone in the field quite well, and you don't seem to have a very solid understanding of the case at all from your talk page comments. DreamGuy (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Stay off the JTR page. Only DG knows what he is doing there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.102.172 (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Bees in Paradise

A tag has been placed on Bees in Paradise 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 a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 biographies.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —BradV 15:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JTR image

I seem to recall seeing an image of JTR from illustrators of the period depicting a shadowy, hat-wearing individual sneaking past police, who were busy looking at a wall. Do you know of what image I am speaking? Would you have a link to such? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whitechapel Murders

Hi, Colin. Just patrolling the above article to check it was still there (!) and have to say that I like what you've done with it. The new sections certainly make it more concise and chronological. Jack1956 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Colin. Good luck with that! (PS Have you seen that the editors who supported DG in the ArbCom are giving each other Barnstars!!)Jack1956 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel63

While based on their editing history Rachel63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) may be a sock of Bsharvy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) this is not confirmed by checkuser, although they do edit from the same country. Squatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), on the other hand is the same editor as Bsharvy as confirmed by checkuser. Fred Talk 23:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarely ...

... I'm thinking of putting Britannia Theatre and Canterbury Music Hall through to GA ... I think Evans Music-and-Supper Rooms could usefully be expanded and a major reorg of Music Hall could get it through FA. Kbthompson (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Have been tied up lately with a certain wikipedia court proceedings involving Groucho Marx, the Three Stooges and the Usual Suspect. Thinking of adding details to the burlesque article:
Admin Stooge - "The Usual Suspect is as innocent as the day is long! I hold you in contempt!"
An Anonymous Editor - "I have the same feelings about you too yer 'onor"!
Admin Stooge - "Silence in Court!"
Chorus of Hep-Cats - "Here comes the Judge! Here comes the Judge!"
Admin Stooge - I find for the plaintiff, I mean the defendent! Court seize the jury and lock them up! Colin4C (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, wikipolitics can be difficult. It really is just 'stroking' to get into arguments here. Learn from your nemesis: Me Sir? No Sir. Not me, Sir. Anyway, it woz them wot started it!. Walk away, come back later when it's all calmed down. Doesn't mean you're a walkover, just not prepared to give 'em the satisfaction. Kbthompson (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read the matter, not having seen it before. As I've said many times, confine yourself to the article, not the editor and it won't be considered poking the bear with the pointed pole. I do despair about the way new editors are treated by the cause of the complaint - it just makes them go away again. But the other one cannot resist a dig, unfortunately that will always be interpreted as the party of the first part, giving as good as the he gets from the party of the second part - and everybody suffers. Ultimately, I'm interested in theatre, but the WP:DRAMA of it is to be avoided. Kbthompson (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I get very angry about his cowardly attacks on newbies. Makes my flesh crawl. Colin4C (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dorset Street

Hi Colin, your 'Flowery Dean' Street and Wormwood Street articles are perfectly valid. If you can have an article on Bucks Row and Henriques Street why not Dorset Street? I was researching at the Royal London Hospital yesterday and swung round to Duvall Street to take a couple of pictures. Jack1956 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I used to work two minutes walk away from where Mary Kelly was murdered there. Her ghost was reputed to haunt our building (The Providence Row Hostel), which I could well imagine, though I never saw her myself. Colin4C (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I know Providence Row Hostel...they also filmed part of The Crying Game there. Isn't there supposed to be a ghost at Mitre Square? Jack1956 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In my personal experience Mitre Square has got an uncanny feel about it of an evening, so I wouldn't be surprised if it is haunted. It intrigues me that Kelly was seen after she was dead in Dorset Street. Was this an apparition? Apparitions occuring at the point of death are a very widely reported phenomenon. Colin4C (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there's a link on Youtube to a pay-to-view site that claims to have footage of MJK's ghost in Mitre Square. Shouldn't it be Cat Eddowes though? Jack1956 (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I retain an open mind on things paranormal, though, on the skeptical side, interesting how little assistance mediums have been in finding out who exactly Jack the Ripper is. If there is any truth in spiritualism the mediums should have been able to get in touch with Jack or his victims on the other side and asked who exactly he was. A lot of us on this side would be grateful for this info...Colin4C (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Lol...yes, that would be helpful. And perhaps Saturday's lottery numbers at the same time. Jack1956 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll be utterly bored to know that I used to live less than one minute's walk from where you used to work, in that case. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Is that the Ghost of Mary Kelly speaking? Colin4C (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undiscussed removal at Count Dracula

This Ray-Ginsay (talk • contribs • email) continues to edit war over the quotes at Count Dracula. I have distributed a {{uw-3rr}} warning to the editor. If (s)he does it again, could you revert? I can take care of the block request, if there is further edit warring from this editor. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am being treated unfairly. This Colin4C is edit warring too and my edits are constructive. It is policy that any edit made in a deliberate attempt to improve the encyclopedia, not matter how wrong it may be, is not vandalism. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JTR edit

Colin, I was wanting to discuss with you, relatively unobstructed, your revert in JTR, linked here. While most of the revert was solid, I think I should point out a couple of problems that need to be addressed (and just a few of them are created by your revert):

  • "Some believe that the victims were first strangled in order to silence them and to explain the lack of reported blood at the crime scenes." This is a weak sentence, Colin. 'Some believe' is what WP calls weasel words, and we are to avoid them at all costs. If this is a direct quote, we need to note with both attribution and quotation marks. At best, it needs rewriting. At worst, it needs to be purged.
  • "sometimes missing the murderer at his crime scenes by mere minutes" Honestly, the other version, noting escape, is a better paraphrasing of the source.
  • "Rumours that the murders were connected intensified in September and October, when a series of extremely disturbing letters were received by various media outlets and Scotland Yard," - the rumors need citation, as well as for the growing intensity of them.
  • "The original police investigation focused on eleven murders, of which five are generally accepted within the "Ripperology" community as almost certainly having been victims of the same serial killer." We need citation that these five are generally accepted within the Ripperology community.
  • (section title) "Goulston Street Graffiti" I think that not that many people (outside of Ripperologists) would even connect Goulston St. with the writings. The other version was a bit sensationalistic, but I think its going to be more accessible to the reader.
  • I think the Martin Fido stuff should be included, since we aren't supposed to show a preference for any particular author or theory (just the notable ones).
  • "The perhaps most ingenious explanation of the sentence was presented by Robert Donston Stephenson (20 April 1841–9 October 1916), a journalist and writer known to be interested in the occult and black magic." Is there a way to cite why he is known to be interested in the occult?
  • "Some believe that the killer's nickname was invented by newspapermen to make for a more interesting story that could sell more papers. This became standard media practice with examples such as the Boston Strangler, the Green River Killer, the Axeman of New Orleans, the Beltway Sniper, and the Hillside Strangler, besides the derivative Yorkshire Ripper almost a hundred years later and the unnamed perpetrator of the "Thames Nude Murders" of the 1960s, whom the press dubbed Jack the Stripper." This whole paragraph simply reeks of uncited OR. First of all, the weasel words 'some believe', then the supposition that the name was created to sell more papers. Then, the supposition that this is 'standard media practice' before making a lot of synthesized connections between Jack the Ripper and the others listed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The onus is on those making mass alterations to at least provide edit summaries and hopefully discuss the changes in the Talk pages, not for us to second guess what a casual editor might possibly be thinking of when they make an edit. Our very ingenious theories about what might be going through an uncommunicative editor's mind are very often wrong. Sometimes editors make thoughtless alterations at random for no discernable reason anybody can figure out. If I make extensive alterations in a page I ALWAYS signal it in advance on the Talk page and ALWAYS provide edit summaries. Colin4C (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged atracities commited by the United States

You might be interested in this. User_talk:Igorberger#Pic User_talk:Marskell#anti-Americanism Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bsharvy

Bsharvy is bed news! Watch yourself. Igor Berger (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-14_Anti-Americanism

I think you should add yourself to the mediation, because Life.Temp did not name you as a participante. He named me and Marksell, and Equazission. I amy come around latter, but ptobably not, bacause I feel hi intent is to make the debate about me not the article anti-Americanism as he sates his consern in the case application. Good luck, Igor Berger (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Text Move

I've moved the following discussion of behavior from Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-14_Anti-Americanism to here. If that is considered inappropriate, feel free to move it back.

You don't have to apologise! Steve has just said that your comments about Igor are perfectly reasonable. You can traduce and harass him often as you like. Feel free to make such negative comments on all other editors, including me and Marskell and Equazcion, who contribute to the Anti-Americanism page. The admins here will give you total support and strike out anything of a similar nature that is directed at you. Colin4C (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Which of these comments constitute harassment?:

1, "but this article has been plaged by sockpuppets of User:Bsharvy. Could this Igor person be another?" (Matbuck)

2, ": "Do you note that at least one other editor above is wondering whether Igorberger is a sock puppet of Bsharvy?" (Steve)

3, " :Are you editing from Bsharvy's computer in Seoul, Korea, Life.temp.? Yes or no? (Colin) Colin4C (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think, we should be discussing the article not sockpuppet allegations or user behavior. We have proper dispute resolution places for such things as SSP and RFC/U. So everybody please talk about the article anti-Americanism as the title of the mediation cabal refers to. Igor Berger (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor you are flagrantly ignoring what Steve has just said above: "Life.temp actually says Banning Igor from the topic would smooth things out greatly (others share his views, so it wouldn't unbalance the process) which is a request that he is entitled to make. It is not harassment and it is up to editors and administrators to judge the request and comment." None of us is such an expert on wikipedia procedure as Steve, so I think we have no choice but to follow his lead on policy decisions. In short Life.temp has the right to call for you, me, Marskell and Equazion to be banned and we have absolutely no right to call it harassment or even comment on it. If we do comment on it our words will be struck out or deleted. What could possibly be fairer than that? Colin4C (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I just read this on Steve's page which shows how neutral he is in this dispute: "Igor is gaming the system and a detailed walk through his history will reveal that, and he is very, very untruthful (I could put that much stronger). For example the rubbish that he just put up at his talk page about my sending sarcastic emails is an absolute and complete lie - indeed I almost reported that to AN/I. Towards a firm answer to your fair question then, my intention is to continue to stay away however if or when he crosses the line anywhere that it becomes necessary I will either report him, warn him or block him as necessary." Basically none of us are allowed to gainsay Life.temp here on pain of being blocked. What could be fairer than that? Colin4C (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being a bit sarcastic there. My point is that Steve has got a lot of previous history with Igor and is not neutral in this dispute. Similarly those of us editing the Anti-Americanism article have had a lot of history with Bsharvy's many and varied sock-puppets. I think these facts are colouring our judgements on this matter in a Pavlovian way. Bsharvy used to use wikipedia disputes processes like this one as a higher form of trolling and deception, hence my suspicions of what is going on here: a sense of deja-vu....Colin4C (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think unless we stop talking about editors' behaviors this discussion should be closed. This discussion suppose to be about anti-Americanism article not a show of who is a better editor, who is a good editor, or who has more power. Igor Berger (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendation

Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States have a look at this article. Get familiarized with the editors who have been editing the article. You can check their edit history with respect to this article. I think you will find the article very interesting. Igor Berger (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008 - Warning

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-14 Anti-Americanism. Thank you. Your continued accusations and insinuations against Life.temp of being a sock of Bsharvy such as this one are without merit. This matter has been finalised here and you are now in danger of being blocked for not assuming good faith and continually harassing another editor. Please stop. --VS talk 21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, that's coming on a bit strong for a process that's supposed to keep its good humour. Having a quick read of quite a long argument, I'd suggest that Colin4c hasn't viewed the outcome of the other process, and is indeed mistaken in making assumptions about the other editor. I think one of the problems is that the dispute has been brought to this forum because of a history of behaviour disputes. I can see why you'd consider a continuation of that argument disruptive. I'd ask that Colin4c be allowed to continue to contribute, but to concentrate on content, not other editors and for him to put the past behaviours of others to one side. I'd also note that Colin4c has a record of positive contributions to the project and ask that you don't take action against him lightly. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The mediation cabal page says: "WE DO NOT IMPOSE SANCTIONS OR MAKE JUDGEMENTS". And here I am being judged and having sanctions threatened against me for what I said there. That isn't fair. If I'd known that what I said there would be taken down in evidence and used against me I wouldn't have participated in the first place. Colin4C (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Continuing on from your comment Kbthompson - I agree exactly with your statement that Colin4C hasn't viewed the outcome of the other process, and is indeed mistaken in making assumptions about the other editor and your suggestions to him are quite frankly, are exactly my points. He can contribute of course on the mediation page or anywhere he chooses but he cannot on any page (without evidence that is proven by the community or its processes) via Personal Attack continue to post edits that explicitly state that another editor is Bsharvy. Indeed despite his rather hyperbolic continuation above and on that page I have absolutely no problem with Colin4C other than those continued Personal Attacks. Indeed Colin4C should be proud of his previous edits to the project and on that basis I hope he will mature his thinking to, as you put it, concentrate on content and not on editors.--VS talk 13:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Help!

There are a couple of problems with me commenting where you have requested assistance in my UserTalk space, Colin. To begin with, the linked page is a mediation and, as I have no connection to the subject being mediated, it would be inappropriate for me to inject myself into that process.
Secondly, I think the others are pretty much correct in that you shouldn't be addressing another user's (suspected) sock-puppetry in an article page. Without absolute conclusive proof of a connection from RfCU or SSP, you absolutely shouldn't. I've been guilty of doing the same thing in the past, and it always ends up the way it does with complaints about our favorite JTR editor - our own misbehavior tends to cloud the issue we are trying to clarify. If the user is a sock, file an RfCU and await the results. Take those results to AN/I or doubly confirm the problem at SSP. Don't talk about something that isn't proven, as it could end up being the doubled-edged problem outlined in WP:SPADE.
You and I both have similar problems when dealing with our lack of tolerance for folk we are sure are thumbing the rules we ourselves find to be nobly-endured inconveniences, or are just rude bastards. I am learning how to modify that behavior, and I would think that you - with theat superb mind of yours - should endeavor to attempt the same thing. If your behavior is exemplary, then the person you think is being a troll is going to appear all the more trollish in comparison. As well, realize that you aren't the sole voice here in WP; there are many other folk here, just as smart as we are, who can catch problems as well. It is contrary to the reason we are supposed to be here to harp on repeatedly about someone who simply Doesn't Get It™. They are going to be dealt with, because they are going to piss off large numbers of people, and be shown the door.
I have bafs of respect for yiou, Colin, but you need to rein in your tongue on this matter. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay Arcayne. Message received. Thanks for giving your time and consideration to this. Colin4C (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incident Notice

I've complained about your behavior here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Colin4C. Hope we can work this out. Life.temp (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation on Anti-Americanism

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Anti-Americanism Life.temp (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#ant-Americanism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 08:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small note

I'm glad you decided to redact this comment. Kudos for recognizing that it may not have been the best idea. Let's try to keep the talk page civil, it is probably the best way to find a way forward out of this mess :) henrik•talk 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you identifying my edits as vandalism?

I'm a newbie and would appreciate it if you would tell me why you're identifying well-intentioned edits of mine as vandalism. I'm here because I've noticed that topics in early American literature and other subjects I teach are poorly represented and I want to improve content. Everything I've done is meant in good faith--and yes, I have tried to read the policies. AngelaVietto (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Angela. I didn't say your edits were vandalism. Just that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a literary review page of detective fiction and that therefore there is no need to get overly concerned about whether or not there are 'spoilers' in the article. The denouement of a work of fiction is not the be all and end all of analysis and we shouldn't get to worked up about whether or not for example 'the Butler did it'. In stating the main themes of a work of fiction the denouement might or might not be relevent. E.g. in an articles on Romeo and Juliet do you think we should conceal from the readers that the lovers die in the end? That would be bizarre. And a lot of fiction is based on old legends with which the reader is perfectly familiar. I.e. they know how it will all end. The denouement is the not the whole point of literary analysis. Colin4C (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Americanism: Truce

Please respond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Americanism#Truce Life.temp (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Onibaba (most recent edit)

I have a wierd feeling the most recent edit of Onibaba, sort of interupts the flow. Oh, and I'm not sure if you approve, but I recently put in a "distribution" and "reception" section. Yojimbo501 (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the whole statement suggesting that the old woman was optimistic about the wars ending. I don't remember this or anything else of a remotely optimistic nature in the film...Colin4C (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I don't have the film, but I remember alot and I'm pretty sure she was bitter because 1) She's a peasant who had to kill to live, and 2) She was living in a time of political unrest, and she had no say in what was going to happen. Should we discuss this further? Should the fact that it takes place in the Nanboku cho period be moved to the plot section or oppening paragraph? Just give me a word and we can get rid of it. Yojimbo501 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get a copy and watch it again to clear up some of those points. Colin4C (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Do you think Onibaba is nearing start class? Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shoreditch

Not sure about the clarifications entirely.. See what you're trying to do though. The parishes were divided in 1830 and historically (when the borough existed), Hoxton, Haggerston and Shoreditch were seen as the three 'districts' that comprised the borough. I'm not sure that the wording accurately reflects this - I mean, it's like saying that the district of Westminster is defined by the administrative boundaries when it includes tens of other areas. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes....but...take for instance the district of 'South Shoreditch', south of Old Street. This formulation implies that there is a 'North Shoreditch' - where Hoxton is... Also there is an area west of Hoxton, before you get to Islington, which is not regarded as 'Hoxton'. The suspicion is that by going west you re-enter Shoreditch - Hoxton thus being an island within a Greater Shoreditch...Colin4C (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. I would say the area going west is very undefined, I guess by this you're referring to the are around the city road basin and just north of that?I certainly wouldn't call it Shoreditch (I would see it as an extension of islington alsost), but I suppose some might. Then again, everyone who lives round here has their own ideas on how everything fits together. It's a little awkward. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peel and the Potatoes

  • 1844 - reports of blight in North America (37)
  • 1845
Early August - Peel receives letter from Isle of Wight reporting blight there (39)
August 11 - blight reported in Kent (39)
August 23 - more reports of widespread blight in England and Europe (40)
September 13 - blight first reported in Ireland (40)
Mid Oct - Widespread blight reported in Ireland. Season's crop ruined (43-4)
Oct 15 - Peel decides to repeal Corn Laws (50)
Oct 18 - Peel sets up scientific commission (44)
Oct 31-Nov 1 - Emergency Cabinet meeting - Relief Commission decided upon plus money to be sent to LL to buy food for destitute districts. Cabinet reject Peel's proposal to repeal Corn Laws. (51)
Oct 26-Nov 12 - Commissioners send back 4 reports (46)
Nov 3 - O'Connel and Irish Deputation demand measures from Lord Lieutenant (48-9)
Nov 6 - Cabinet again rejects Peel's proposal to repeal Corn Laws. (51)
Nov 9-10 - Peel orders purchase of £100,000 worth of Indian Corn from America (54)
Nov 15 - Commissioners final report - half the potato crop is destroyed. (51)
Nov 20 - Relief Commission has first meeting (57)
Dec 5 - Peel tenders resignation to Queen Victoria - over issue of Repeal (52)
Dec 20 - Peel reinstated as PM (52)

In August reports reached the government of widespread potato blight in England (39-40). On September 13 blight was first reported in Ireland (40). In mid October potato blight was reported as widespread in Ireland (43-4). On Oct 15 Peel decided to repeal the Corn Laws to reduce price of grain for the poor (50). On Oct 18 Peel set up a Scientific Commission to go to Ireland and investigate the potato blight and report on conditions (44). An emergency Cabinet meeting on Oct 31-Nov 1 instituted a Relief Commission plus other measures to alleviate distress but Peel's proposal to repeal Corn Laws was rejected (51). On Nov 9-10 Peel ordered the purchase of £100,000 worth of Indian Corn from America for distribution in Ireland (54). On Nov 15 the Scientific Commissioners reported that half the potato crop has been destroyed (51). On Nov 20 the Relief Commision first met (57). Unable to convince his Cabinet to repeal the Corn Laws on Dec 5 Peel tendered his resignation to Queen Victoria but was reinstated days later when Lord John Russell was unable to form a government (52).

[edit] WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World War II. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

This is your second revert in less then 24 hours. Please use the discussion page before unilaterally making such changes. Oberiko (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You are attempting to again skirt around 3RR. Do not make such edits without acheiving consensus at the discussion page first. Also, I will enforce this warning, whether you remove it from your page or not. Oberiko (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Belated reply

Hi Colin. Yes, the degeneracy thesis is interesting indeed. I think it says as much about a coalescing sense of European racial superiority as anything else.

I see the low-level revert war carries on. You think he'd get tired of all these inane talk threads he keeps starting. But listen: the bit about The Host movie is way way too long. I think it should be cut or at least trimmed to one sentence. If it's more than one sentence, I'd add one or two other cultural examples so that we're not randomly focusing on one movie. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)