User talk:Friedfish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia, Friedfish!
00:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC) Sincerely, Ryan

-?ÔÑ- Hello...I'm not Ryan...

Click here to add a new talk message below.


[edit] Archives

STORE My archives...

  1. /Archive_2005Q3
  2. /Archive_2006Q3
  3. /Archive_2006Q4

[edit] Current Quarter

[edit] Proposal for a UK radio stations task force 070404-070523

Hi there.

I noticed you are part of the radio stations WikiProject but wish to contribute to UK radio station articles only. I have made a proposal to start a UK radio stations task force which would be able to work more effectively with UK radio station articles whilst still being a part of the main radio stations WikiProject.

Full discussion and opinions are being sort here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Proposal: UK Radio stations task force.

Thanks. --tgheretford (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there.

I am discussing a revised idea of starting a task force, part of WikiProject Radio which covers the radio industry, as well as the radio stations of the United Kingdom (in contrast to the original idea to just cover UK radio stations). Discussion on the proposal is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#New proposal: UK radio and radio stations task force. Look forward to hearing your views and potential interest the revised task force. Thank you.

(P.S. I won't ask why all the text is light blue!) --tgheretford (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yes a good taskforce indeed. At least I don't have to expalin the light blue!!! → friedfish 10:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to consensus, the UK Radio task force (covering UK radio in general, industry and stations) has been created and is now running at WP:RADIO/UK. Please feel free to join and help UK radio get a better presence in Wikipedia. --tgheretford (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerez de la Frontera 070409

I looked for evidence to support the etymology of Jerez that you insist on inserting in the "Jerez de la Frontera" article.
A search of web sources turns up the following references to "Ceret", one from a travel agent's site, one from a wine merchant's.
From www.oneplanettravel.com: "A unique heritage has shaped the layout of Jerez: traces of the ancient Xera, as the Phoenicians called it, the Roman Ceret, and the Moorish Sherish, and constructions subsequent to the Christian conquest. The jerez wine (a kind of sherry) is worldwide renown."
From www.winesfromspain.com: "Jerez's name apparently derives from the name of the Greek city Xera, meaning ‘the dry land’. In Roman times, when Jerez was known as Ceret, millions of amphorae of wine were shipped to Rome. It was in this period that Vinum Ceretensis began to gain fame and appreciation outside Spain."
From www.flamencoshop.com: "Some say that the Phoenicians introduced the vine to Spain, but it is more probable that Greek settlers brought it with them around 5th or 6th century BC. It is pure speculation, but the name Jerez may also be Greek in origin: they could have imported wines from the Persian city of "Shiraz", so why not name their new town after that city?"
From www.answers.com: "The town's Persian name during the Rustamid period was Xerex

(Shariz, in Persian), from which both sherry and Jerez are derived."

From sports.espn.go.com: "Ankoor Biswas of Chicago adds, 'Xerez is a former name of

Jerez de la Frontera, a city in southern Spain. Sherry wine was originally produced in this

town, and got its name from the city -- which the Persian founder named after the Shiraz

wine of Iran. So xerez is essentially the name for sherry produced near the Jerez de la

Frontera region in Spain ... . I knew all this because there's a Spanish second division

soccer club named Xerez CD. Every once in a while it pays to be an American following

international soccer.'"

Because the nearby city of Cadiz was, almost certainly, founded by the Phoenicians about 1104 BCE, Jerez was probably either an outpost of the Phoenician colony with the name, Xera, meaning "dry land", or a Tartessian village whose original name does not survive. The Greek settlement which followed, in the sixth or fifth century BCE, is likely to have assumed the same Phoenician name, Xera. The Greek root "Xer-" also means "dry"; this root survives, for example, in the English word, "xeriscaping", meaning landscaping in areas where water is scarce. The idea that the Greek name for Jerez was "Shiraz" is utter nonsense. Why would the Greeks name their city for a Persian city? The Persians were the mortal enemies of the Greeks for hundreds of years. The idea that the Greeks would honor the Persians in this way is beyond absurd.
As for the name of the Roman city, I am inclined to think the Encyclopedia Britannica is closer to the mark than the travel agent, the wine merchant, the dance studio, and the estimable Ankoor Biswas of Chicago. According to the latest edition of Britannica, Jerez is "probably identical with the Roman Asido Caesariana." The 1911 edition says, "Jerez has been variously identified with the Roman Municipium Seriense; with Asido, and with Hasta Regia, a name which may survive in the designation of La Mesa de Asta, a neighbouring hill."

As for "Ceret", I think it is what is called a "back-formation". That is, I think the reference to "Vinum Ceretensis" (wine of Ceret, whatever that is) may be a misspelling of "Vinum Cretensis" (wine of Crete). Crete has produced wine for millenia, and it may have been the source of the vines introduced to Iberia. In any case, until I am shone a map with "Ceret" on it, I am not persuaded that there was ever such a place in the Roman world. Gades appears on Roman maps of Hispania Baetica; so does Italica, near present-day Seville, the birthplace of two Roman emperors (Trajan and Hadrian). So, too, you can find "Asta" at approximately the position of Jerez. But no Ceret. Nowhere.

As for the Muslim name, "Sherries" or "Sherish" is simply the approximate Arab pronunciation of "Xeres" or, more properly, the Arab name, "Seris", which is a more accurate transliteration of the Arabic name. The business about the Rustamids is largely irrelevant. The Ummayads conquered Spain. The Rustamids were in Tunisia and Libya. Yes, the Rustamids were a Persian line of imams, but whether they called Jerez "Shira"z or not is questionable, They never controlled Jerez, so they didn't have much of a right to name it. The Ummayads chose "Xerez" or "Xeres", and maybe that's all we need to know.

For these reasons, I intend to remove all of the questionable and patently nonsensical material, and, unless you can present better evidence, I don't expect you to revert it again. PeterHuntington 04:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

An incorrect sign at a museum in Jerez de la Frontera
An incorrect sign at a museum in Jerez de la Frontera

Thanks for your input - not sure I agree with your assumptions on the value of researching via the internet, although you are putting some useful information into the article. Keep up the good work - perhaps the people who used this "Evolution of the word" should have the errors of their ways pointed out. → friedfish 09:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

SUPP --- Two non-researched historical accounts still does not make it a fact!... References by complainer were not even used!!

[edit] Deletion debate on ZIP codes 070430

An {{afd}} tag has been placed on List of 56 ZIP codes and many other pages, requesting that they be deleted from Wikipedia. All Wikipedians can join the debate at Articles for deletion, where articles asserted to be inappropriate to Wikipedia are discussed. You are encouraged to submit your opinion, and remember that Articles for Deletion debates are not a vote. Please do not remove the deletion tag yourself, but don't feel inhibited from editing the article, particularly if doing so makes it clear that it is a useful contribution to an encyclopaedia. On behalf of Snowolf, my owner, Snowbot 16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How bout this instead 070505

v • d • e
Tourism
Types of tourism
Miscellaneous
Hospitality
See also


Mindys12345 09:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

G'day, yes a nice navigation box could be useful to link the tourism pages together. Are you a member of the relevant Project group? → friedfish 10:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually no, I probably wouldn't be of much use apart from a few simple ideas like the one above. But I will try and set this thing out properly before I start placing it.
Those links under the template are slowly being added to the template, for some reason there on your page as well.
Mindys12345 10:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Tramways in Scotland 070522

What is your objection to {|class="wikitable"|}? Why do you call it a "non-essential" edit? The table format looks visually neater. Peter Horn 01:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

With pleasure... Peter Horn 19:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kayleigh Pearson 070523

While I fully support your revert on Kayleigh Pearson (no source was cited by the editor), I think to call it vandalism is harsh. There is anecdotal evidence around the internet that she is an Albion supporter, but I have yet to find a reliable source to prove or disprove this. I do appreciate that many of this user's other edits were vandalism, so I can understand why you may have thought this was too, but to me this was a good faith edit. Sorry if I'm splitting hairs. --Jameboy 11:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Splitting hairs is not good for the scalp; the user had made a few nonsense edits; and as you've mentioned, there is not (yet) a citable reference to Kayleigh Pearson supporting the Baggies. Hope that you will be "boing-boing"-ing on Monday evening! → friedfish 12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:EscudoMallorca.gif 070603

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:EscudoMallorca.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your report to WP:AIV 070607

Thank you for making a report about Kcusreggin (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. -- lucasbfr talk 10:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clear writing for phrases on 2006 Ipswich murder investigation‎ 070607

Hi Lucy-marie

Thank you for your contributions to the above article. I was uncertain regarding the correctness of changing the sentence: His bail was cancelled on June 6, 2007 and he faced no further action in connection with the inquiry. to Bail was cancelled on June 6 for the first suspect , as no more inquiries involving the case were to be undertaken involving the first suspect.

Is this suspect involved in other inquiries? Was bail only cancelled because the inquiry lacked sufficient questions? Actually, he was released from bail because he will not be on trial.

Have fun → friedfish 21:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gene Loves Jezebel Page 070613-080423

Hey Friedfish. There is vandalism over on the GLJ page again, by someone names Studiomorphic. Is there a way of reporting that kind of thing? Thanks! GhostAston

Me again. More vandalism on the GLJ page...is there anything I should do or is posting here all I need to do? Thanks! GhostAston —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, it's me. Some user is trying to edit one of the links and after I removed it because it's misleading and not the official site, he/she tells me to "leave it alone". I'm guessing it's not a moderator. GhostAston —Preceding comment was added at 18:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Guess more studio musicians stuff!! → friedfish (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

haha, guess it could be! I do need your help though. The page is being hijacked with false information and quoting one recent article which completely goes against other articles available on the web. Jay Aston has no rights to the band name, the history as I've put it in the article are accurate and provable. This is one of his fans causing trouble here as they have caused countless other places. GhostAston —Preceding comment was added at 12:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, help! It's getting so out of control. --Ghost (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Phew-ee! This could become a project on its own. Guess a cooling off period is unlikely to help either... Pursue the nemesis to get a log-on, which seems you have already done. Bizarrely, this is getting like correspondence with former member of Marine Girls (below) after pointing out that she had written a pile of "tosh" about the band. Still waiting for her website to clarify everything. Just hope that Head of David don't get upset!!! → friedfish (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good morning! What do you need from me to get this Jay nonsense removed from the page? His version of the band is false and misleading to fans. The "UK Trademark" is without merit. Could there possibly a regular GLJ page as I had it and then a GLJ(UK) page if you really need to leave the info in there? As for the unnamed user, he or she constantly blanks their page whenever a message is left there. --Ghost (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are 2 more articles that contradict the Zero Mag article that's been quoted throughout. http://www.gljonline.com/yesterday/words/articles/rad06-97.html This is another article where Jay knew full well the details behind the '97 tour. It completely goes against the Zero Mag article. http://www.gljonline.com/yesterday/words/articles/rollingstone040599.html In this article, Jay says that Michael hasn't been involved with GLJ for 10 years, yet he acknowledges his presence in the band in the Zero Mag article. Another thing to note is that Jay mentions Michael not being involved with the band during Kiss of Life, yet in the Zero Mag article Michael's time spent recording the song Kiss of Life is discussed. I would imagine these indescrepancies call into question the validity of the Zero Mag article. --Ghost (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Friedfish. You referred to me as a nemesis. Nice. I see you are nothing more than a GhostAston accomplice. Neither of you apparently care about a balanced article on Gene Loves Jezebel. Anyone who wants the article to reflect more than just Michael's take on things is a nemesis. Hmm... And GhostAston -- you may feel the UK trademark is without merit, but who are you to decide this? If Michael had the UK trademark you wouldn't be saying that, I'm sure. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.43.195 (talk)

Good Lord, Friedfish. So much for assuming good faith. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of band/artist articles in Wikipedia which list the release of live and compilation albums in the discography. Some of these bands/artists are more obscure than Gene Loves Jezebel and have a more thorough discography. I was merely trying to paint a more complete picture of the Gene Loves Jezebel discography. What's wrong with that? You don't have to be so rude. (98.220.43.195 (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

  1. Hi, rude? Again, Wikiedpia policy is for notable releases. → friedfish (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Friedfish. Anything yet on those two article links that I posted? There really is no Jay Aston's Gene Loves Jezebel and the article from Zero Magazine that is so heavily quoted is far from impartial.--Ghost (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Friedfish, I hope that GhostAston's above post shows you how irrational he is. He denies even the existence of Jay Aston's Gene Loves Jezebel! Let me assure you -- they exist. They have a website, a MySpace page, they record music AND tour. When I saw Gene Loves Jezebel in Chicago recently, it was with Jay Aston as lead singer. It was billed as a GLJ show. Many people were in attendance. See, unlike Michael's GLJ, Jay doesn't have to tour with five other 80's bands to mount a tour. Jay's GLJ is not a hallucination. They may be a nuisance to people like Michael Aston (who stole the name) and his friends like GhostAston, but they do exist. Remember, GhostAston admits on his own web site that he is a personal friend of Michael's, so that hardly makes him the most neutral, objective person to contribute to this story. I hope you will agree with others, that the article should remain as it is, with both GLJs listed and featuring more than just Michael's side of the story. Thank you. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said that I was "personal friend" of Michael Aston. Stop quoting some old fansite that I don't even go on anymore let alone update. I've never even met Michael. And Jay has no legal rights to the GLJ name, hence there is NO Jay Aston's GLJ. Michael trademarked the name in the U.S. In the U.S. and the U.K., both Common Law countries, the first to use a trademark owns it. Michael trademarked GLJ and then toured the U.K. resulting in the album Live in Nottingham. That is why the "U.K. Trademark" has no merit. Michael hasn't stolen anything, that story is a really old one and has since been proven untrue. Please try to stick with facts when making claims about things you simply don't understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostAston (talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You called Michael Aston "a friend"! I read it! DO NOT DENY IT. If you've never met him, why did you call him a friend? Is there something wrong with you? 98.220.43.195 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys! Been away for a few days but have been thinking about various directions for the Gene Loves Jezebel page to go. One idea would be to split the group history section up into two (or even three) parts. i.e.Early Career from 1980 to 1989/90; that is the really creative period and the time period that the band were successful. This could be followed by a "Parting of ways and brief reunion" period from 1990-1995; then subsequent years with the separate identities of how the band is today. At moment the article skews the relevance of this excellent band towards the more mundane aspects of protracted legal disagreements. Also needed would be a brief biography of Jay Aston - such as date of birth, where grew up, acts contributed to and musical abilities. In addition, care must be taken with releases of records, for example withdrawn releases and promotional releases should not be included unless there is a strong reason to do so. Your ideas would be welcome! → friedfish (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. --Ghost (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I just made some changes along the lines of your suggestion friedfish. They should be more fair. --Ghost (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with Ghost's changes. In fact, I like them. What?...Do we have...CONSENSUS?!?!? :-) 98.220.43.195 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


SUPP --- Yippee!! → friedfish (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marine Girls 070620

Hi Shrunkenjumper

Thank you for contributions to Wikipedia. Your edits to the article Marine Girls whilst expanding the content do contain certain inconsistencies which puts bias into the article.

To claim that the music was Indie would be to stretch the point. Their releases were on "indie" record labels, as was about 70% of music in the UK at that time, however their style is basically folk music.

The group were contemporaries of such acts as Young Marble Giants and The Raincoats. Broadly speaking the group belonged to the fanzine-driven groups of the period 1980-1982, popularised by NME's C81 and Magic Reel cassettes. By contrast, The Slits, were from the punk era. By influences, are you implying musical or philosophical? There could be many acts and artists that influenced the group members but the example of The Slits is incongruous with Marine Girls musical style.

Your comment from Kurt Cobain has been moved to a (new) trivia section although a reference would be appropriate. However, their influence on the early Riot Grrrl scene would seem to original research and has been omitted.

In previous edits you have implied that the group was a four-piece. During the time line of the group, Alice Fox replaced Gina so maintaining the core structure of a "trio". There were also contributions by Tim Charles Hall. Also the implication that they all sang is not correct. → friedfish 11:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing irrelevant pictures in Tourism page

Hi, sorry for the delay. I have replied to you on my user page.Mariordo (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, since you are an experienced editor, would you mind to drop by the Talk page of Food vs fuel, there is an endless discussion that requires input from experience Wiki editors regarding the proposed article name and the 2008 controversy section. In my humble opinion the guy who created the article just insists on keeping his personal point of view on the issue, I have already tried every angle without results. Thanks.Mariordo (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)