User talk:Anna Roy

Welcome. Please post new messages at the bottom of the page. To start a new section click here

Archive 1 (May 09 – December 2010)
Archive 2 (January 2011-May 2011)

Removal of image at Depression (mood)

Hi. You cite WP:IUP for your removal of the image at Depression (mood). Can you please tell me which element of that policy we were breaching there? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For now, I've restored the image but please comment at Talk:Depression_(mood)#The_photo if you think it should be removed or replaced by a more appropriate one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletions

I take it you are following my edits, to link to portraits, and reversing them. Do you have a specific reason or agenda I should be aware of?--Hughlay1407 12:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughlay1407 (talk • contribs)

As I mentioned in the edit summaries, the links appear to be WP:SPAM, promoting the work of an individual artist. Articles are not for personal advertising. See WP:EL and WP:SPAMLINK. It appears that you may have a conflict of interest. I have no personal agenda here other than clearing up spam. Span (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Tagging of Crowdsourcing creative work

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Crowdsourcing creative work. I do not think that Crowdsourcing creative work fits any of the speedy deletion criteriabecause it is not an article about an entity or product and therefore does not meet the criteria G11 or A7, and none of the other criteria apply. Please use PROD or take the article to AFD for consideration. I request that you consider not re-tagging Crowdsourcing creative work for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of American Roman Catholics at Perry Como

your edit (rv unsourced cat)

Not sure how many more sources regarding this there should be:

In 1958, the Comos celebrated their silver wedding anniversary with a family trip to Italy. On the itinerary was an audience with Pope Pius XII.Como Received By Pope Pius Upon returning home, Como was both puzzled and upset that photos from the visit made the newspapers throughout the world. A thorough check of both the Como and National Broadcasting Company (NBC) publicity offices found that neither was responsible for the release of the photos to the media; it was done by the Vatican's press department. When Perry and Roselle became Knight Commander and Lady Commander of the Equestrian Order of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre in 1952, it was a news item only after Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, who had been honored at the same ceremony, made mention of it some time later. Como Wears White Hat Perry Como: A Biography and Complete Career Record Perry Como, An Early Biography-RCA Records-Perry Como at Home Far From Tee

His funeral Mass took place at St. Edward's Catholic Church in Palm Beach, Florida;Mourners remember 'nice guy' Perry Como at singer's funeral

We hope (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I was asked for an outside opinion and have given one at the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. See Talk:Perry Como for reply. Span (talk)

Scorsese

What's so strong about them? A sub-section of a newspaper that isn't even part of the real newspaper, and a couples of books. All with no exception written/produced after Wikipedia had started writing that his middle names were Marcantonio Luciano (after 2007, that is). A professional genealogist is a more reliable source than any of that, and if the California Divorce Records list him as Martin C. Scorsese, that settles it. Legal documents are more reliable (and that includes his political contributions). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Who are you?

Hello. Who are you, and when are we to have met or communicated in the past? George Dance (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to remove links to poems from articles I've written, please find other links to the same poems and substitute them. George Dance (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I posted a reply on my own talk page. George Dance (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

James Earl Jones

It is working for me and just passed at WP:FS so it is working for a lot of other people. I will create an audio only version that people can listen to if they can not view the video.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the audio only file work for you?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Anna Akhmatova

Hello, Those expand tags were on the talk page and I moved them to the article page as that is where they usually appear. I have not tried to look at the German and Romanian articles but assume that whoever added those tags originally assumed a featured article would contain material which would enhance the English article. The same is probably true of the Russian article which has not been given featured status. Which parts to translate and whether to look for supporting citations for any of the statements would have to be decided by the translator, who would not be required to translate text just because it was there. If I had selected a source article for expansion it might not have been one of those. Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Postmodern authors

Sure Like I said elsewhere, I was just getting authors out of Category:Postmodern literature and categorizing more of them based on List of postmodern writers. If the categories are inappropriate, then I fully support someone removing them, but reverting back to when they were categorized in Category:Postmodern literature and Category:Postmodernists gets us nowhere (e.g.) I would be happy to help you with this, but I'm simply too ignorant about literature to determine if (e.g.) Joseph Heller is a postmodern author or not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't see your comment elsewhere. I'm puzzled by what you say, as writers like Alice Walker and Roald Dahl were never listed as Category:Postmodern literature as far as I can see. Am I missing something? Span (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

See here List_of_postmodern_writers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mary Cunningham Agee

Spangelj, I have added dozens of verifiable references to Ms. Agee's article in response to the banner giving notice that this was needed. I have been the Director of Communication at the Nurturing Network for 20 years and feel response for saving this article from being the chopped up mess that it was a couple of weeks ago. I have access to dozens of well-sourced references, which, as you can see, I added today. It isn't clear to me what finding consensus means in Wikipedia or how you go about reaching it. Mrs. Agee is an historical figure among women activists and her article needs reflect that. The material that I have worked on for the past week and published today is factual and well sourced. What aspect of it isn't acceptable to you? How do we proceed from here? Getting this right is a high priority. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Omnibus170 (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to identify “trouble spots” that you feel do not reflect a NPOV in this article. If you will point out sections that you feel conflict with Wiki policy or need a reference, I would happy to work on them further and propose an improvement that we can both accept. My goal is twofold: Removal of “warning” banners as soon as possible and making sure that the factual, historic element of Cunningham's early advocacy for women is not overlooked. I know Cunningham Agee the person. I know the facts. I have or can get references. You know how Wiki works – and you can balance any tendency I could have that may not be neutral. That makes us a good team. What is really on my mind today is the importance of not removing core elements of this article because it includes accomplishments and awards … and in so doing fail to tell the story of this historic person. There is a reason for the awards and Board service – and the reason is an appreciation people have for how Cunningham took the experience of Bendix – her own hurt – and the hurt of losing a child - and turned it into an advantage for other women who are hurting. That is the story we must tell from a NPOV. The interesting twist on Cunningham’s life-long commitment to empowering women is that she didn’t go the route of advocating for abortion rights; she went the route of seeking a common ground on the abortion issue and placing high priority on the provision of practical resources for women in crisis. Very few leading feminists of the day made that choice. As a Roman Catholic who was strongly influenced by a Monsignor who befriended her family when she was very young, Cunningham’s faith drew her in this direction. That is why the connection with Monsignor “Father Bill” Nolan is important in her story. She melded the painful experience of Bendix and losing her first child to a miscarriage with her extensive training in strategic planning to found an international charity. We simply can’t leave corporate strategic planner out of her lead story line. It belongs there as it is central to her professional life. Is there any of this material in the new opening section that you are not comfortable with? Omnibus170 (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added back some material (the middle paragraph) ofyour work in the Career section that I feel is essential. It is factual and well documented. I corrected some typos in the Nurturing Network section. I feel strongly that we must communicate how the experience of Bendix made Mary a public and historic figure in the context of gaining equality for women in the workplace. As background, here is a little history that may help you to see that her business experience is pivotal in the feminist movement in this country. She didn’t plan it that way; but she became a pioneer. Her story isn’t important because the media went bananas and the country was curious; it is important because it was a pivotal event in the feminist movement. When her blonde head hit the glass ceiling, all hell broke loss and women who were earning half as much as men for the same job all cheered. It created a country wide "wake up call" that the good old boy network was a thing of the past - that female colleagues would be treated respectfully and professionaly. Silly today, I know. But this was how it was in the 80's. We had to learn. Cunningham wrote about the experience, landed on her feet after being much sought after by other Fortune 100 companies. She had a successful career with Seagram developing their world wide strategy. She left all of that to found a successful international charity that has been a resource for women for 25 years. This is what we need to capture in words that conform to Wiki guidelines. I look forward to having your help in accomplishing this. It might be worth mentioning that today the Bendix story would almost seem quaint – a woman has frequent access to her boss and 2-3 years later they get married. No big deal. The 80’s was an entirely different ballgame. That is the reason that Gloria Steinem – a leading feminist – came to Cunningham’s defense. And why that documented fact is important to include. It is about feminism and who the early pioneers were. This is core material in the story. Rather than diminish the lead paragraph in Agee’s article, I am proposing that we expand it a little and follow the model of Dr. James Dobson – a colleague of Mary’s who is well known, is a teacher, writer and someone who founded a charity. I would encourage you to read the Dobson intro and see the parallels between Jim’s lead and the lead I am proposing today. Since there are no criticisms of the Dobson lead, I thought it would be a good model. Please feel free to share your thoughts … thanks. Omnibus170 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It is factually inaccurate to remove all of Agee's teaching - speaking, writing, articles etc. from her article, as this element of her professional life over that past twenty five years is central to her story. Because it responds to one of the core mission elements of the Nurturing Network (education), I have included some key information in that section. One short paragraph re: key addresses is more about honors (i.e. Commonweath Club and others)than TNN's mission, so I included it in the Honors section. (The last 7 US Presidents have addressed the Commonweath Club. It was a high honor for young professional woman.) The Pope does not invite just anyone to give two address to Forums in Rome. These are important to include. Same with the Supreme Court. Does that seem like a good distinction to you between honors and teaching and motivational speaking that is related to TNN? I continue to remove adjectives that are the least bit superlative. Do you have a comfort level now with both NPOV and reading like a story not a resume? If you do, please feel free to remove the warning banners. If you don't, please let me know where you see a shortcoming and I will work on it. Omnibus170 (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice and have worked diligently to add references to this article that Wikipedia has designated as sub-standard for this reason. Could I ask you to please look at this article again and evaluate my success? Have I accomplished what is required? Does it honor NPOV standards while still telling the story of an historic figure in the women's movement? I have read dozens of other articles and Wikipedia guidelines and have tried diligently to compensate for any tendency toward COI. It is my longstanding professional relationship with Ms. Agee gives me access to the references that are necessary for a well documented article. I have added references by a factor of 6 or 7, added page numbers where I have them, removed every adjective that could remotely present a "glowing" report - trying in every way possible to meet Wikipedia standards for encyclopedic tone. (One exception might be mentioning 3 other women among the 60 starting with Betsy Ross in the Cullen-DuPont Anthology. I included that mention mostly for the benefit of other editors who may have missed the 80's and not realize Agee's prominence as an advocate for women. The anthology is an important reference but the names of the other women could be deleted if you feel it isn’t appropriate.) Will you please take an interest in this article and promptly evaluate if it now meets standards so both banners can be removed? This article reflects only a small percentage of the material in Ms. Agee's Curriculum Vitae and, I believe, now reads like a NPOV story of an historic person in the woman's movement. I cannot believe that adding more articles (which I could do) would increase credibility. It is already factual, credible and well documented. I am hoping that you agree and can remove the warnings promptly. If I still need help understanding NPOV or encyclopedic tone, please help with that. Thanks so much. Omnibus170 (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Spanglej, I appreciate your advice and, in particular, your willingness to work on the Mary Cunningham Agee article so that it does meet objectivity standards. I honestly don't know what isn't acceptable and which accomplishments anyone would question. I don't know how to put a COI tag on my talk page nor do I fully understand how that will help to rid the article of "resume" tendency. My goal is to participate (with someone or someones) who definitely have a neutral point of view and substantial Wikipedia experience to order to convey Mrs. Agee's accomplishments appropriately. Yes, I fully understand that someone can present information that casts Mrs. Agee is a negative light. If / when that happens, we can and will examine their objectivity / neutrality and the quality of their sources. I understand. My immediate goal is get someone's help in presenting the material that I currently have a knowledge of and know to be accurate in an acceptable encyclopedic style and then have someone other than me remove the warning banner. And then on with the process ... however that unfolds. Really appreciate your interest and help. Omnibus170 (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Devito

next time b4 u think i made all the edits on Danny Devito, look at my contributions, then check on the contributions the people made b4 me. All i did was give the right birthday in the infobox. Sorry u got confused. Dbunkley6 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, it was the edits of the IP before you I was reverting. Sorry. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Lewis

For your information i reverted a bold edit made by AMacR and have already joined the discussion on the talk page in regards to C. S. Lewis. How does a bold edit by AMacR that has no consensus have more weight than me applying WP:BRD? If there is a disagreement with something in an article it is customary to revert to what was there before the issue was raised until the issue is sorted. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No problems. Stating he's British is the most accurate term as he is a British national and according to the manual of style for biographies we shouldn't mention ethnciity or country of birth in the lede unless its relevant to the article. His ethnicity was never a major issue in his life going by the article so it can be deemed as not relevant. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim Robbins

Stop reverting my edits to the tim robbins page or you need to get blocked. Height informations are added by the most celebrities. 188.23.211.222 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please assume the good faith of other editors. I did not revert your edit, I added a reference from a newspaper to validate your edit. Span (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Valentino

You're welcome. Pinkadelica^♣ 23:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ruskin

Hi. I am wondering why the so many of the links I have made to external sites from the Ruskin page have been removed? I note that some have simply been moved, but other have be REmoved altogether. I am attempting to improve the Ruskin entry in conjunction with other Ruskin scholars. The current entry is inadequate on several levels, and I spent some time trying to improve a few sections, to find that a lot of it is now missing.

I am new to Wikipedia editing, and I appreciate that the piecemeal approach means that the page was looking temporarily rather messy. I do not want to enter into a situation where we undo each others revisions, so I would really appreciate it if we could discuss this further.

With best wishes, OrelPosrednik77. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrelPosrednik77 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful reply. It is useful to know the protocol. I shall look at he links again, because I think some of them are less useful than others. For example, the Baldwin Library has been retained, but links to Brantwood, Ruskin's home open to the public, and the Guild of St George, have been deleted. I am also puzzled by some other editing. The section entitled 'Biographies' was in place prior to my joining the Wiki community. It has now been moved to further reading. In the move, my explanatory notes have been deleted (pointing out, for example, that Professor Rosenberg's book is really a biography of Ruskin's thought) and Robert Hewison's OUP title has been deleted altogether. What is the explanation for this? And why does the further reading not say that these titles are biographies, rather than some other genre of study? I note, too, that some of the hyperlinks have been removed. So, for example, we can still go straight to the wikipedia page on environmentalism, but not sustainability and craft. As a visually-impaired editor and user of Wikipedia, I find the use of endnotes (references, sources) unehlpful when linking to external sites (but crucial for citation, of course). At present, the references are out of balance, with few of Ruskin's most notable scholars being referred to. I am not suggesting that all of the edits are unhelpful or puzzling, and it is both a comfort and a joy to know that someone is looking at this. I appreciate your time, and asistance. With best wishes, OrelPosrednik77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrelPosrednik77 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Okay, that helps quite a lot. I have made some edits in the meantime which will need to be changed in light of this. I am sure you are on to that. I think I am going to leave editing this for a while, so that I can read up on the protocol. I think it is a pity that we are limited in the number of external links given the number of Ruskin organisations and resources online. Although it is interesting to link to places named after Ruskin, Brantwood and the Guild are clearly more important than a library with one Ruskin book, or a college formed out of homage to him. Can I ask if my edit, listing Ruskin's biographies under the Bibliography, in a sub-section, is okay, or is this also a no-no? Many thanks. OP77. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrelPosrednik77 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments, yesterday and today, and for your help. In most cases where I have cited a source, the entire book addresses the subject at hand, but I shall have a look, and see if I can add appropriate page numbers. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrelPosrednik77 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! I really appreciate your advice, patience and encouragement. Hopefully we can gradually shape this entry into something worthy of both Ruskin and Wikipedia. With thanks (for the cake, too!) and best wishes, OrelPosrednik77

Apologies if our edits crossed over. Is what I have done ok?

Many thanks for your help and patience. I hope you don't mind, but I have changed your 'proponents of Ruskin' to 'Ruskin enthusiasts'. It is one thing to enjoy reading Ruskin, as those named certainly do, but another to imply that they advocate Ruskin in some way. It isn't necessarily untrue, but I wouldn't wish the case to be overstated. I do have citations, and will add these in the coming days. Many thanks for your guardianship, assistance and patience. OrelPosrednik77

It is a pity about the Facebook link, as the page is maintained by the Ruskin Library and Reseatch Centre at Lancaster University. OrelPosrednik77

Just to say the changes to Ruskin this morning are mine. I forgot to sign in, for which I apologise. All are minor edits/additions, and should cause you no difficulties. Hope you are well and thanks for your encouragement and support once more. OrelPosrednik77

A brownie for you!

Thanks for your edits to Mary Cunningham Agee. It looks like a better article now. SPhilbrickT 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty flower!

Actually, I showed the sunflower to my little daughter, and that's exactly what she said! Thanks, appreciate the wiki-love. You rock, too! Christine (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

LGBT

OK sorry, i will amend these arts with sources (diaries of Iwaszkiewicz and Malinowski etc.) Mathiasrex (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Span (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Agee page is great

Spanglej, I am very pleased with the result our collaboration even though I didn't win on every point that I felt mattered. It wasn't easy at times. You led me through the process of learning what a quality article needs to read like with a lot of patience. Thanks for being a great teacher.Omnibus170 (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Cecil Day Lewis

Changing the date back was a curious decision, if I may say so. It was not previously footnoted, I think, so the original date given had equally little probative value.

The Revd Frank Cecil Day-Lewis died on 29 July 1937.

My source is The Principal Probate Registry, Calendar of the Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration made in the Probate Registries of the High Court of Justice in England (London) (1937), p. 105.

Furthermore, his death was registered in the Southwell Registration District in the third quarter of 1937 - see General Register Office, England and Wales Civil Registration Indexes (London) (Third Quarter, 1937), names Lev-Lew, p. 28.

These are both public domain resources

By the way, his age at death was given as 60 - which implies a birthdate of 1876/1877.

I leave this to you to sort out. Cpsa (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Span (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

You're right, but that doesn't make it appropriate to use rollback. Btw, since the editor seems quite persistent, you might like to leave them a note explaining our practices when it comes to nationality and citizenship in the lead before things deteriorate. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Span (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification

Hi, Span Thank you for the indication. It is great to see that wikipedia has a real time poetry editor. Anyway, sorry for any inconveniences and keep up the great work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.200.62.123 (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Best wishes Span (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback.

Hi Spanglej, Thank you for taking the time to inform me about the reasoning behind red links. I hadn't that they were unlinked on purpose. It was my impression that they were links to articles which had existed but at some point were deleted. Like you said, I have edited a significant amount of these red links recently. These mistakes will be promptly reverted back to their original format. Thanks again. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Best wishes Span (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Chicago Disney

HI this is DisneyChicago99, I know that Vincent Price was the master of horor. So please can you block Vincent Price or Semi-Protect him. Thanks, DisneyChicago99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisneyChicago99 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Spanglej did you ever saw the artical of George Lucas?, if so I saw his recent history and there were some VANDALISM sightings, do you think George Lucas needs a blocked. I mean he is kinda like spielberg and look his blocked, but not Lucas!. [PLEASE WRITE BACK] Thanks, DisneyChicago99 P.S. Please help me block Lucas! — Preceding unsigned comment added byDisneyChicago99 ([[User talk:DisneyChicago99|talk]contribs) 00:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello S. It looks like the persistent IP hopper from earlier this year has returned with this user nameDisneyChicago99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I notified the admin who has worked on this before at this thread User talk:Ponyo#Gregory Peck.27s Signature. I don't know what else there is to do at the moment but I wanted to let you know what is going on. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bukowski Novel Portal

Just curious: why did you re-add the "Novels Portal"? Does it really belong here? The "See Also" section was for an entry that was deleted. So it doesn't make sense to maintain this section for a link to a Novels Portal. Wouldn't a Novels Portal be more appropriate as a link in an article for one of Bukowski's novels?Jpcohen (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not so good to have a 'see also' section with nothing in it. I moved the portal down. Other novelists have lit portals such as D. H. Lawrence, Margaret Atwood and Philip K. Dick so it seems fine to keep it, to me. Span (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For calming me the hell down. I assumed no scandal section on the Rupert Murdoch page meant that some folks were doing some serious police action, so stormed in like a crazed viking to a war zone. Only to discover some very reasonable people having a tea party. And yes, I will have sugar with that. Sloggerbum (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Native/Indigenous descent

You wrote that my category was removed because I stated that the subject is visibly of Native/Indigenous descent. Based on the removal of visual cues as a proper reason, then all categories that include people of visible minority groups such as, People of Asian/African/Indian etc should be removed as well. This makes very little sense to remove a category due to the fact that it was based on a visual description. The vast majority of,say, people of African descent would therefore have no category based on your logic of removing my category of those of Native Latin/South American descent. Removing that/those categories because it was visual based discredits quite a lot of categories on Wikipedia. In a nutshell, your reason makes very little logical sense, and I do hope that you are not one of those who think Hispanic/Latino is an actual race of descent that one came from. Taking a look at Morgan Freeman's page, one sees the category 'African-American film actors', do you believe that Freeman presents his family history to prove he is African? Do you think the author of that Wiki page was given hard proof that Freeman is of African descent? Visual cues were used, and categories were made based on that because in such a case, visual cues are a logical way to judge ones race. Categories were made, and people are added to those very same categories based on visual cues. Your removal of those categories are without proper thought. Removing my category based on your reason, discredits many of the categories on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black309 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your message about the "Native Mexican descent" category, I'd say that the user claiming that sourcing this kind of category based on a subject's looks is missing the whole point of WP:V, and you were correct to revert. As for the African American category being the user's example for including this category, I know a user who often challenges that particular category in articles forcing others to provide a source to support its inclusion despite the fact that the subject really looks African American and is pretty much known as such. While it is annoying to track down a source that states Beyonce is in fact a black woman (just an example), it is something that can be challenged by anyone and should be sourced. Same goes for this Native Mexican decent category which, in my opinion, is a lot less obvious. The user needs to provide a source to support its inclusion or they need to stop adding it. If you need any additional input, please let me know. Pinkadelica^♣ 00:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Span, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thatcher

Thank you for your help & advice. Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is a state funeral for Thatcher now an accepted fact? I thought it was merely under discussion? This article is the most recent I can find; it suggests a definite position has not been reached/confirmed/announced. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034634/Lady-Thatcher-honoured-State-funeral.html Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Stoppard

No problem at all. Just trying to help. Are you a Stoppard fan? Phaeton23 (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan. Going to see R&GRD on Friday. I saw Tom a little while ago, lounging outside a pub near me, having a sneaky fag. We exchanged smiles. You are helping. Span (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Williams syndrome

Hi - my two edits to Williams syndrome came from The Language Instinct. I have that book at my other house right now. The quotes I got came from a form of the book I searched on Google Books, but for some reason it didn't give me the numbers of the pages. Perhaps someone has the book and can find which page it is on? Linguogeek (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I added them. Span (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and BLP

Edit warring is in and of itself bad, but edit warring to maintain controversial material in a BLP is a serious offense. I highly suggest you make your case on Talk:Melanie Phillips and do not revert again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I would back up a bit. I did not war, I reverted once. It is useful to discuss your mass deletions on an article talk page, even with BLPs. Please be careful what accusations you level at other editors. Thank you. Span (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Did I say that you were already edit warring? Making a change and then reverting after you were reverted is the path to edit warring, something I was cautioning you against. If you were to follow WP:BRD you'd go to the talk page instead. Please be careful to accuse people of leveling accusations that they have actually leveled. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I had not previously been reverted. The edit of Aug 1st was to do with a prize not Breivik content and that edit still stands. Span (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips

Hi. I've started a discussion at Talk:Melanie Phillips about whether it's appropriate to mention her influence on Breivik. It would be useful to have some further details from you as to why you'd like to see the content included. SP-KP (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will come along later. Best wishes Span (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Duncan James

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Duncan James, without giving a valid reason for the removal. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Eversman (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Eversman, I gave a full edit summaries and links to the policy pages for the reasons I deleted the material at Duncan James. Perhaps you did not see them: "Remove unsourced cats. Rm unsourced info that is not covered by WP:EGRS". WP:EGRS and WP:BLPCAT say that information about a subject's sexuality should only be noted if it notable to their public life and that it is self-identified. There is no valid source given in this article for this. The Bisexual categories were also removed for this reason, as stated. Contributors making edits you may not like is not vandalism.Span (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you do not understand very well Categorization of ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, as it is stated: Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (see WP:BLPCAT). And since Duncan James has stated in the given reference; I'm bisexual. I've been in loving relationships with men as well as women - and I'm not ashamed. But even though I fancy men, I still fancy women too., it is obvius that you are trying to justify your edits which can be characterized as vandalism. For everything you've deleted there was a valid source, but you have decided to ignore it. Shame is on you, not me, for such unconstructive edit.--Eversman (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a valid source because you just added one yesterday. Article histories are available for all to view. I gave full edit summaries with links to the guideline pages to explain the edits. You may not agree with my edit but it does not fall into the realm of vandalism. Now there is a citation, yes, but as I have outlined on Talk:Duncan James, James' sexuality is not "notable to his public life" re WP:BLPCAT. Span (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Question re talk

gday and thanks for the offer of advice at the top of my talk page. So here's the question: I need to reply to a comment on my talk page accusing me of edit warring - I suspect I may have inadvertently done so because Wikipedia seems to run on American time and I am in Australia. So what was two consecutive days here was all one day in America. But never mind I am happy to apologise and try to work with American time in future. But there doesn't seem to be a reply button so I can get back to him. Thanks for any help you can give Floccinauci (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A MESSAGE TO YOU Spanglej

It is difficult to admit How Wikipedia is a welcome place actually Spanglej? because i really dont know who you are and i see that all these last weeks you were deleting any reference to the Best Poems site.

Why my page Best Poems Encyclopedia presenting the anthology i created has been deleted? while it was the same copy as the Project Gutenberg page and Poetry foundation page one. Are you promoting the services of some institutions and not others? Why if it is a 95% identical page, our page is considered as spam and not of these same identical websites links which we find in every poetry page like if Poetry is their own heritage. Is it this the "free" flag of Wikipedia?

And why my account i have created in 2006 "Wikipedia" and created with it the page "Djelloul Marbrook" has been blocked and then deleted?

01:35, 16 April 2006 Longhair (talk | contribs) blocked Wikipedia-editors (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Username) 23:40, 27 October 2006 Gurch (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Wikipedia-editors" ‎ (temporary userpage over 1 month old for indefinitely blocked user)

Why for exemple this Longhair i tried to contact to unblock my account hasn't been deleted while he refused even to reply to my requests to unblock this account?

Is it our IP adresses who seems to you that we come from a third class world and that only what you suggest is the right thing?

We havent thousands and hundreds links like these seo promotters of Poets.org and Poetryfoundation whose links are in every poetry page in this encyclopedia. It looks that it isnt an open encyclopedia. How is it possible that my links have been deleted from pages i have my self created in the past years and you come add links from entities who havent placed any word to create pages of Pablo Neruda and others except in their websites and you give them all credits? It looks like they become your associates?

You did a great work here deleting 10 links i added in 7 months

1. 16:11, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Edna St. Vincent Millay ‎ (Undid revision 443077999 by 197.200.49.189 (talk)) (top)
2. 16:10, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Bertolt Brecht ‎ (Undid revision 433112508 by 197.200.63.193 (talk)) (top)
3. 16:08, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Bob Kaufman ‎ (Undid revision 433111452 by 197.200.63.193 (talk)) (top)
4. 16:07, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) E. E. Cummings ‎ (Undid revision 432769293 by 197.200.49.31 (talk)) (top)
5. 16:06, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Anne Sexton ‎ (Undid revision 432591715 by 197.200.52.141 (talk)) (top)
6. 16:05, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) m Anne Sexton ‎ (Reverted edits by 187.11.97.168 (talk) to last version by 92.18.146.39)
7. 16:05, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) The Dream of a Common Language ‎ (WP:NOTLINKFARM) (top)
8. 16:03, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Ogden Nash ‎ (spam) (top)
9. 16:02, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Matthew Arnold ‎ (Undid revision 444855972 by 197.200.55.3 (talk)) (top)
10. 16:01, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) m Romantic poetry ‎ (Reverted edits by 197.200.55.3 (talk) to last version by DrJimothyCatface) (top)
11. 15:59, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) m Samuel Taylor Coleridge ‎ (Reverted edits by CRumens (talk) to last version by Spanglej) (top)
12. 15:58, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) User:COIBot/Poke ‎ (1) (top)
13. 15:54, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Carl Sandburg ‎ (copyvio spam) (top)
14. 15:52, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) T. S. Eliot ‎ (Undid revision 444543364 by 197.200.56.6 (talk)) (top)
15. 15:49, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) Mahmoud Darwish ‎ (Undid revision 440221763 by 197.200.56.62 (talk)) (top)
16. 15:43, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) m Pablo Neruda ‎ (Reverted edits by 197.200.57.157 (talk) to last version by Spanglej) (top)
17. 15:28, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) User:Hu12 ‎ (thanks Jimbo) (top)
18. 15:18, 26 August 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Hu12 ‎ (→A barnstar for you!: thanks) (top)

And i will surprised to see you delete these poets.org and poetryfoundation.com links placed in every poetry page. I think that this is really what is SPAM when you place tons of links to some privileged clients and dont welcome any other free resources even if they are of more quality of what you are promotting because here it looks that you become an official promotters of some institutions and maybe that you are paid by them.

FREEDOM at the end, you lost the elixir of what has been your key identifier.

=

'And if you think that Poets.org is more placed to promote Mahmoud Darwish who is an arab like me, then Bingo... because it looks that you are hunting the IP adresses more than the content itself and this Jimbo is maybe someone who know what he is doing, ask him and i ask have you contributed to create this page????'Bold text

- LET ME GIVE YOU THE "SPECIAL FRIENDS PUSH" BARNSTAR, you merit it

I suspect that it is you with some hidden reasons are trying to blacklist the best poems site

Someone is spamming the site 'best poems' from various different IP addresses over many months. It is a generic commercial poetry site that generates revenues from advertising and offers links to poetry text. It offers no unique value. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] There are many more examples of spammed articles, mostly American. When deleted as spam and policy refs given, the editor jumps to another IP and re-adds [18]. The site would seem to deserve a spam black listing. Thanks Span (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

   summary

       * best-poems.net: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

   Adsense google_ad_client = pub-5815837753304072

   Spam Article

       * Best Poems Encyclopedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

       Accounts

   CRumens (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • user page logs • x-wiki • status • Edit filter search • Google)
   197.200.53.53 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.51.6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.52.190 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.60.104 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.57.157 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.48.234 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.54.227 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.56.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.50.180 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.56.6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.55.3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.50.80 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.52.141 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.49.31 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.63.193 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.63.22 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.49.189 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.49.78 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.61.76 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.55.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   196.3.105.250 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.54.204 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.92.152 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
   197.200.56.186 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRumens (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC) 

With blessings from Algeria

you stink of racism and hate Spanglej, else how explain that you have deleted even links that authors themselves like Vasil Slavov have added to their own pages because we have published them on the site, and also links that we have not even as editors of the Best Poems encyclopedia we've added to Wikipedia as Anne Sexton page, and Ogden Nash. And that's why there's nothing to talk to you about. As algerian we are proud to have did this work with best poems site, but as poet, you, because i am sure you are, will you be proud to have sold your soul to evil like that? May be it hasnt been good for you that algerian people, these bedouins put their feet in english poetry area? with blessings from Algeria