User talk:BillyH/archive1

Dom Joly

Dom Joly - thanks for pointing that out - it seems obvious now! --Danhuby 16:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ITV

RE: New ITV Article - thanks for your comments, and for correcting my spelling mistakes! I'm glad that you like the new article. - Marknew 10:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Welcome

This is a bit late as you already seem to know what you're doing, but welcome!

If you haven't already done so, you can introduce yourself on the new users page.
You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
Remember to use the show preview button before you save a page.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Some useful pages in case you haven't found them yet are how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela . 22:47, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

From Bod

Hello, noticed your new articles, you're bringing back memories: Cor!!, Film Fun! Are we going to get Nutty and Krazy comics too? Krazy was my fave. Best wishes, --bodnotbod 23:48, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Krazy lasted less than 2 years!? Lordy! Seems like a lifetime at that age, doesn't it? I've still got them somewhere. --bodnotbod 00:08, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm trying to add as many British comics as I can to Wikipedia, well, at least the ones I know about. Nutty is already up, as it was done by someone back in April '03, but I'll still be doing comics that don't have their own entries. BillyH 00:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get your issue dates from? Personal collection? --bodnotbod 02:31, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes I examine my collection, but mostly I find them off the internet. BillyH 02:43, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

From Lukobe

Re your message on my talk page (Hi, I notice that your vote and a vote by an anon IP at Wikipedia:Images for deletion have exactly the same reason, and were added within 4 minutes of each other. Was the anon IP's vote also yours, or does it belong to someone else? Thanks. BillyH 19:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)),

Nope, the anon IP's vote wasn't mine. I'm always logged in when I do stuff on Wikipedia. Must have been someone else at my company. Lukobe 19:57, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Hello from Vodex

Hi, I see you've done quite a bit on british comics. I'd like to start a category of comics published by Fleetway (similar to Category:DC_Thomson_Comics_titles) as in Whizzer & Chips, Eagle, etc., but am not sure who published them, making them either Category:Fleetway_Comics_titles or Category:IPC_Comics_titles. They may not even be the same publisher. Don't want to create wrong pages & can't find this out on the net. Do you know please?

(I have a long watchlist so might not see your reply, perhaps put on my user page?)

Teletubbies

From your edit summary on Teletubbies, you say that there are no new episodes being made for the show? Marcus2 20:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do. It was announced in February 2001, though 365 episodes were made and continue to be shown as repeats. Billy H 20:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I Salute You

Just spotted, via X-Ray Spex, your article on X-Ray Specs, the comic strip, which I fondly remember from reading old annuals when I was very young. I can hardly believe that Buster continued publication until 2000, although this is true. [1] It's like finding out that Bis, the band, are still going. Although they aren't, they split in 2003. But it would be like finding out that Bis, the band, were still going - if Bis, the band, were still going. Which they are not. And neither is Buster. But it was, within living memory. I was into Warlord more, though.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quatermass

Cheers for correcting my episode title slip in the Tate picture caption! One of those 'D'oh! How could I be such an idiot!?' moments! :-) Angmering 21:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

I didn't notice that before. Thanks for fixing the problem. By the way, I noticed your comment about Middlesex, my grandmother lived in Hillingdon. I am now in Texas. MPLX/MH 00:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Classics from the Comics

(Is there a better way to reply to a msg than to go to the other user's page and edit? It's not the most effiencent way to make threads).

Anyway, you asked me about :

"Occasional bumper-size anthologies are also produced of around 300 pages."

By this I mean the generic anthology I bought, which I then used to make recent edits to strips lists (See recent http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Vodex ). The reprinted strips are very similar to the aticle you describe and I suspect I found a bumper reprint anthology of 'Classics from the Comics' bumper reprint anthologies :)

Years in television

Hi there!

This is a message to all users who were at one point of time or another actively involved in editing the "Years in television" articles.

I have developed a new format, that I am currently proposing to apply to all "xxxx in television" articles. If you could take a look at 1976 in television/Temp and leave your comments/objections/propositions at Talk:1976 in television/Temp, that would be much appreciated.

Please note that the Temp version is by no means final. It is there to give an idea of the new proposed structure. Please do not be critical of the actual layout; it will most definitely not stay unchanged.

Any ideas you might have will be quite welcome. Thank you for your time.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Renamed Article

Just to let you know, I've renamed the "Play Away" article, to "Playaway". This is what it's called on the BBC website, so thats why I renamed it. cheers! Jcuk 21:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese

Casa dos artistas means the artists' house or house of the artists, SqueakBox 15:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Neasden photo

Hi Billy. I noticed you nominated Image:Neasdenfacingtowardsblackbirdhill.jpg for deletion at WP:IFD, as it's at Commons:Image:Neasden facing towards Blackbird Hill.jpg. Those two images are different. Which one is the original? (It's always good to keep the original, so that people can tell how you changed the image, and perhaps improve on your changes.) Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 00:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The one on Wikipedia is the original. I slightly adjusted the saturation when putting it on Commons. Billy H 12:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have new messages

I don't quite know what to write. I don't want to disappoint you with a boring message like this, but I do want you to scream out loud and do the wikidance! Bishonen | talk 22:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have done so! :D->-< Billy H 22:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Years Survey

Hi. To get everybody thinking, I've created a survey about Year pages here. I'm telling all the participants of WikiProject Years and everyone else who has shown an interest or participated in the discussion. If you could check it out it would be appreciated, and tell anyone you think may be interested.Trevor macinnis 03:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale removal of the "Year in topic" sections

Hi, although I realize some discussion has been going on about the year pages I consider your removal of the "Year in topic" sections a great loss. (And, unfortunately, as new edits have been made in the meantime on almost all year pages, simply reverting to an earlier version won't be possible any longer.) What made you do that? I clicked on a few random pages and immediately got pieces of information on each of them which are now irrevocably lost: the Stratford Shakespeare Festival (1952 and 1953), the reference, and link, to Philip Larkin's "Annus Mirabilis" (1963), and the mention of "no soap radio" (1966).

Over several years hundreds of contributors have collected and compiled those data. Please don't do such things again in the future. All the best, <K F> 00:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC) (I'll be on holiday for a week, so I won't be able to react to any replies right now.)

From the looks of things, the majority of the year in topic sections were just duplications of early revisions of the year in art/film/music/sport/television/etc pages. This gave an odd effect, making it seem that these events had been picked out as 'highlights' when far more notable things had happened. For example, in 1997, it seemed to insinuate that Farrah Fawcett appearing on The Late Show and The Magic School Bus ending were more notable than Channel 5 and BBC News 24 launching.

In regards to the events you noted...

The Stratford Shakespeare Festival events linked to the non-existent 'Year in theater' pages, none of which currently exist. If someone chooses to create them, then I'm sure that it will feature there.
For "Annus Mirabilis", I fail to see why the fact that someone wrote a poem about 1963 in 1967 is notable, despite how famous the author is.
And for 'no soap radio', this was in a section entitled '1966 in humor', an article which I'm pretty sure will never be created.

In the WikiProject Years Survey, which I should really get around to filling in, there is currently a 5-0 vote for permanently removing the sections. If it swings the other way, I'll be happy to put all the sections back.

Since this is unlikely to happen, though, I'd wager that pretty much all of the notable events in the sections can be found in the pages linked in the yearbox, which is why I removed them in the first place. Besides, I was only completing a job which someone had already started - the sections for 1999 to 2002 were removed by someone else back in December 2004. Billy H 01:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]