User talk:Simpatico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Simpatico, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing,

[edit] Greetings from London!

Hello,can you please tell me why you and other Americans still like The Beatles so much? Best wishes, Lion King 12:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Who doesn't like the Beatles? Their music transcends culture and time. :) —simpatico hi 12:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Fans of The Stones! But I tend to agree with you. Be lucky, Lion King 13:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, huge fan of the Stones, but huger fan of the Beatles. I was obsessed with them all through middle school, posters and cutouts of them wallpapered my room, I even convinced my dad to get a license plate that said "BEATLES." It was all I listened to and read about for the better part of three years. I grew out of that thankfully, but I'll be a fan for life. It's interesting how the British Invasion bands of been so enduring in America. The Beatles are still bestsellers, and McCartney and the Stones currently have the most sought after tours here. I suspect maybe a boomer nostalgia influence, but in my opinion, these bands will never die. :)
By the way, and this'll be completely out of left field, but have you ever seen the UK TV series Spaced? I'm sure you have seeing as you live there, but I feel like I've found a hidden treasure here in America. It's AWESOME! When Shaun of the Dead came out here, it was one of the funniest things I'd ever seen, so I ended up buying a region-free DVD player just so I could order it from Amazon.co.uk. It was so worth it. Ha, watch you actually hate the show. Anyway, now that I've talked your ear off typed your screen to bits? I think I'll stop now. :p —simpatico hi 16:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wots with the Bollocks? Have I offended you in some way? Lion King 16:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No, I just think they're funny words, therefore I say them with abandon, whether in response to pleasant greeting or brutal insult. I think I feel a shite coming on... the word I mean, heh. —simpatico hi 16:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You are completely up the dancers! Lion King 16:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! *logs "up the dancers" away for future use* —simpatico hi 16:43, 25 January

Got a lot of Cockneys where you live then? Lion King 17:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No, we have a lot of British stereotypes. ;) Have I offended you? If so I apologize... —simpatico hi 17:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Behave yerself, 'course not, I'm just winding you up! Lion King 17:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So hard to tell with your thick Cockney accent... —simpatico hi 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Know wot you mean, can't understand meself arf the time! Lion King 17:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Capitalization

Simpatico, I was amused by reading the arguments about the capitalization of the Beatles. The reason I don’t waste (much of) my time at Wikipedia is seeing what a friend of mine goes through: he goes nuts trying to get others to stick to “the rules” here, and the amateurs always creep in and ruin things, even when he makes changes according to Wikipedia policy. As a professional and someone who has been involved in editing and publishing for a long time, the short answer is: you are right, your books are right, and the hobbyists, even if they outnumber you, are wrong (for now—God only knows how English will evolve). There is also no difference between American English and English on this subject. But Wikipedia is amateur night when it comes to English usage, and like life, the intelligent will always be outnumbered, for better or for worse. (Remember the spam-free internet?)
   This is nothing to do with the logo, but everything to do with traditional English usage. Hence, no professional editor would permit The Netherlands, The Dallas Cowboys or The Royal Philharmonical Orchestra in mid-sentence—and the most prominent example was right under your nose: The United States. A casual glance on Google suggests the amateurs disagree. I am a member of a think-tank called the Medinge Group, and the definite article in the logo is capitalized—but not in text. (If we followed logos, then we would always have to write VOGUE or dick clark productions, so this argument falls flat; indeed, the Beatles themselves capitalized every single letter, if I remember The Ed Sullivan Show correctly, so they surely must always be THE BEATLES?) Similarly, the convention translates into foreign terms: e.g. al-Qaeda. There are some exceptions: I can think of The Hague, and The Terrace here in Wellington where I live.
   As you probably know, with your college education, if the definite article is attributable to the title of a work such as a publication, art or a ship, then it is capitalized as well as italicized along with the remainder: The New York Times, plus the name of Mr Sullivan’s show above. I tend to put song titles in quotation marks without italicization, but the album is italicized—an analogy with chapters and books:

the song ‘The World Is Not Enough’ from the soundtrack album The World Is Not Enough.

   Perhaps the move away from capitals gained its greatest ally in the prewar Bauhaus school, where typographers such as Herbert Bayer sought to kill them altogether, on the premise that we do not talk using them. That has influenced, certainly, typesetting ever since, where professional typographers tend to observe this rule: if you can avoid capitalizing, then do it.
   It is generally accepted in the publishing community that capitalizing definite articles mid-sentence when they are not attributable in the circumstances above is a sign of pomposity, much like when dumb people use the words proactive and paradigm to make themselves sound smart.—Jack Yan 04:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Simpatico, thank you for your note. I only came by today. Looks like the amateurs saw sense. I agree: all it would have taken was for the folks to keep their eyes open while reading! It still gets me that in all their arguing, they never Googled a few newspapers for their usage, or, for that matter noted that most of the Beatles used a lowercase the.—Jack Yan 12:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you all mind returning to the Beatles project talk page [1]? The discussion could use your reasonableness (although I would completely understand if you just couldn't take any more of the madness).McTavidge 06:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DeanWinchester.jpg

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 10:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supernatural production notes

Hey, couple of thoughts: If you want to differentiate between the production company made "previouslies" and "soons" and network promos, I think we need further clarification, as in explicitly saying which part of the production company made them (was it the producer hired as "show runner"?), and then saying these are not the same as network produced promos. Both are using famous songs now, so people watching may not be able to make the distinction. We could list the other few production examples too, like the "Wheel in the Sky" previously. I was wondering about the other markets which is why I included that phrase. Other than Canada and the US, do you know about the international markets, and if they are showing these as well? Also, that dash in the previously sentence is not proper sentence construction. I really gotta change it. Cheers! Xndr 11:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the input. I do understand about making a distinction with the previouslies and soons, so I said the "production team" was making them. I was only asking about the "show runner" because I was wondering if it was known who made them, and I'd be interested in that, just out of curiosity. I agree, they are important in setting up the importance of the epi's. Saying fanbeloved is a little POV I think, but not too bad. I would like to make the distinction known, because I do think it can be confusing for viewers who is responsible for what, i.e., the previouslies are more important to that show because they are created by those closest to the stories, and not by the network. Still, some fans really love the promos, so I'll think of something to put in there making the distinction, like the CW makes their own promos which aren't Kripke's (which kind of act like "soons", but that doesn't need to be mentioned).
I am kind of split on making a list of songs and how they are used. On the one hand, I don't want to stretch out something non-notable, but on the other hand, these songs are a distinct part of the personality of the show. You know how they are carefully chosen, create the setting, characterization, etc.. (this is in opposition to a show like Smallville, where it seems like they are sticking unheard songs in there just to promote the songs, I think).
By the way, lemme get your opinion on the Sam Winchester article. Someone stuck in the laptop, but it may not belong. I edited it but didn't delete because they were at least trying to flesh out the page. The background could be rewritten with more info, but I doubt I'll do it. See ya. Xndr 12:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dean/Jensen Image

So that image got deleted, I almost wish that you hadn't touched it, uploading a new one brought attention to it, it's my biggest peev with Wikipedia their image policies, basically unless you take the photo yourself, chances are that it'll get deleted, I mean it's pretty difficult. Sorry this is turning into a rant and wasting space but I just hope that this sort of thing doesn't cause you to walk away from Jensen/Supernatural articles cause I find you to be a good and fair editor and really hope that you continue. Maybe we can come up with an approprite image, I was thinking that a screen shot showing Dean sort of in action would work, I don't know. Firelement85 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is now the Beatles

In case you are not watching the page, I have now formalised the policy to reflect the proper way of refering to the band. The announcement is here, and the wording is on the main page. Your help in applying this policy to the articles would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU 15:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe you were in on the recent discussions, but your name cropped up when I circulated the above message to the editors that were. LessHeard vanU 15:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just the entire Beatles Project... If you come across a Beatles related article then please edit. As like as not it will be reverted by someone who isn't aware or cares for the new Policy. LessHeard vanU 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:SamWinchester.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SamWinchester.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia, Consensus, The Beatles and Project Policy

I was going to step away from this, since I was only going by the rules and I didn't want to get into a big dispute (especially with editors who I respect and have enjoyed working with), but recent events have brought me back.

The debate about naming the convention regarding the capitalisation or not of the letter "t" of the in t/The Beatles has been going on for a while. I have endured the snide remarks of a Twit, and have engaged in civil debate with some others who continued to question Project policy regarding the issue. I pointed out the need to establish a reasonable argument for their viewpoint over and above that of some professional knowledge so there could be a debate. When they did provide reasonable grounds for reopening the debate I used the offices of the Beatles Newsletter Issue 9:Issue of the Month to request comment, debate on the matter. There was no response. In the next Newsletter Issue 10:Issue of last Month I commented that there had been no response, and that the Project policy would be altered to use of the lowercase. Again, nobody other than the proponents responded. After a brief while I did as I said I would, and amended the Policy.

[edit] Belated reaction

The new Policy is not to the liking of some of the editors involved the the Beatles Project (as the previous one was not to others.) After the policy was implemented reasons and arguments for retaining the previous convention were given. Authorities were cited and some discussion was created. Very recently more than one editor has edited Beatles related articles specifically to reflect the previous policy.

[edit] My Comments

My preference is to capitalise the letter t of the in the Beatles.

Wikipedia has very few rules; two of the most important relate to consensus and verifiability.

Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles has a specific area for the implementation (following debate and consensus) of Policy. The associate talkpage records the debate and the arguments used in reaching Policy decisions. The Project also maintains the principle of abiding by the rules that have been agreed, and the fundemental Wikipedia ethos of consensus.

[edit] My Observations

No recent discussion occurred when the matter of the use of lowercase or uppercase was notified in two Newsletters, other than between myself and the proponents of lowercase at the Policy talkpage. Since Policy implementation discussion has only occurred on the talkpages of concerned editors, or on the talkpages of some of the articles, and not at the Policy talkpage.

More than one editor has unilaterally decided to ignore the new Policy, going so far as to amend articles to reflect the previous convention.

[edit] My Conclusion(s)

The Beatles Project is being disrupted by editors who I personally know to be conscientious and dedicated contributors of long and good standing. In that there is now occurring what might be considered vandalism (the knowing altering of articles in a manner that is against Wikipedian and Project rules and policy), likely as a result of their strongly held views, I believe that this matter needs urgent addressing. I am copying this to the Policy talkpage, and to all the editors involved in formulating the new policy and the recent opponents. I suggest that this debate is taken there, and that this matter is decided in a civil manner in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia.


I am deeply saddened that it has come to this. I am depressed that editors (people) whose integrity and civility (not to say sheer fun) I had been proud to be associated with have acted in (what I see as) bad faith and flagrant disregard for the rules and guidelines of both Wikipedia and The Beatles Project. LessHeard vanU 00:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JohnWinchester.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JohnWinchester.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Michaelscofieldtattoo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Michaelscofieldtattoo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 non-free media 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. After Midnight 0001 20:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)