User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 66

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sphilbrick. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

→

Hello again

I'm in trouble once more. User talk:Marchjuly has deleted all of my embedded links on the Pierrot page. He says that "I think links directing the reader to external websites are not allowed" on Wikipedia. Is this true? If so, why is there an "External links" section on almost every Wikipage? The argument has been shifted to WP:ELN, but I'm afraid no one will give it any attention. I trust your judgment. Do you have any time to give to this debate? It seems to me a bureaucratic one: either Wikipedia is committed to the spread of knowledge or it's not. But I'm not familiar with all the rules. And if I'm at odds with them, I'll gladly bow out. Sorry to be a pest ... Beebuk 00:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a pest. I will look into it, but it may not be until morning.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Beebuk: It is not quite correct to say that links to external websites are not allowed, however, after reading some of the discussion, it is clear that @Marchjuly: does understand. The short response is that external links are allowed in an external links section, usually at the end of the article (although the editor pointed out an exception for embedded lists). I do agree with the editor that the embedded links within the article are not appropriate. The editor also noted that while embedded links are not desirable, conversion to a proper footnote’s conceptually allowed. However, the editor did not think any of the embedded links qualified. I think many do. I will follow up with a proposal at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Embedded_external_links_in_Pierrot--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Characteristically wise words. I look forward to your proposal. My one anxiety is avoiding copyright infringement, which I think most of the links do. I'm a little mystified by the stricture that external links are allowed only in an external links section: it seems to me a Kafkaesque proviso. But I'll abide by the decisions of officialdom (as Kafka did). You're very kind to spend serious time on this (on Pierrot!!!, of all lowly creatures). Beebuk 14:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Beebuk: The key is “copyright violations”, not “copyright”. Almost all footnotes in Wikipedia link to copyrighted material, and this is undoubtedly true of external links in external links sections. The concern about YouTube is not that the YouTube itself is copyrighted by the creator, but that many creators include copyrighted material without obtaining proper permission. We are fine with linking to copyrighted material, but we are not fine with linking to material that is itself a copyright violation. I confess I had to stop and think about this for a second, but I hope my point is clear. While YouTube is a particularly egregious example the concept applies elsewhere. If someone created a website containing New York Times articles and did not get proper permission, we would not want to link to that website, although we would be fine with linking to the New York Times articles themselves. (For the picky tps, I do know that there are examples where you could include an excerpt of a New York Times article for analysis purposes or parody which creates an exception — I’m talking about an example where someone just recycles copyrighted articles).--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Beebuk: There's seems to be some confusion the regarding the meaning of I think links directing the reader to external websites are not allowed. First it's part the sentence Wikilinks are fine of course, and even a red link could be considered acceptable, but I think links directing the reader to external websites are not allowed which is part of a larger paragraph discussing the embedding of external links within articles. I was not trying to imply such links are never allowed on Wikipedia, only that they are not allowed to be embedded into article content as they were. In fact, near the end of that paragraph I wrote If, however, the links are simply as you state above for leading the reader to an external website (which I believe was the case for all of the ones I removed), then they should be added to the external links section instead if they satisfy WP:ELYES. My post should be viewed in its entirety because the context of it is being established by all that is written and not by a single phrase. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Beebuk: @Marchjuly: I posted a proposal at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Embedded_external_links_in_Pierrot. I included pings, but I botched my initial post; I'm aware that if a ping is included in a post, but the post does not include a signature, it doesn't help to add the signature later the ping won't go through. I think I did it correctly but, in belt and suspenders mode, I'm adding another ping here.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick. Thank you for the pings. I read your post at ELN and have responded there. I think it's best right now to try and keep any discussion of this at ELN per WP:TALKCENT. There is likely to be lots of unnecessary overlap if we try to discuss this here, my user talk and ELN. @Beebok: Please feel free to add your any further comments you want to make about this to the aforementioned ELN thread. All editors are free to post relevant comments there and keeping everything in one place will make it much easier for others to follow along. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

2016–17 Gonzaga Bulldogs women's basketball team

SP, I saw you took down the CSD tag. Did you read what I wrote on the talk page. The article is a 80% cut and paste of the 2015-16 article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is a pretty standard way of creating the article for a new year. There's a template for the players, many are the same, so copy and paste, then update the new players. Personally, I think it's a bit early. You largely know about the roster by now, but the schedule isn't yet out, so the editor has to remove the outdated schedule. However, with a few exceptions we know the coaching staff, where they are going to play, and some other information. There's virtually no doubt there will be a 2016 – 17 season, so the main question is whether it is premature, and a secondary question is how much cleanup ought to be required before accepting it as an article.

I do create some of these pages although not as many as Lewis. My preference is to article into a sandbox, fix the roster, remove the schedule and do some other cleanup in a sandbox, then wait until the schedule is announced before making it a live article. However, I'm describing my personal view of best practices, and I don't think there has been any consensus regarding a community best practice.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I went and made it into a redirect to Gonzaga Bulldogs per WP:BOLD since as the article stands it is a mess. When it is fixed up, somebody can revert. Sorry if my first post sounded a little brusque. No offense meant then or now. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

About Draft:Uzvara - OK with you to undelete it?

Hello, you good old brick, you.
I was working on that draft when you deleted it. It really is a populated place in Latvia. I added a Latvian government ref. See lv:Uzvara (Gailīšu pagasts). While I'm OK with Romance or Germanic languages, with the Baltic branch of the Indo-European languages I can only recognize cognates and... oops, I'm waffling on, and not getting to the point, aren't I.
OK with you to undelete it? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Shirt58: The timing is odd. I've been deleting a number of G 13s, and trying to make sure they are all valid. I just declined to delete one because I could see that someone was working on it. I must've missed that you are working on that one. Please feel free to restore it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Me again

I just wanted to make sure that you got my words of thanks. It's very uplifting to know that there are Wikipedia editors who are not just intent on dismantling errors (as some whom I will not name here seem rabidly eager to do) but who are intent on finding ways to correct and overcome them. Cheers, you good old brick, you. Beebuk 00:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I really, really appreciate your comment, and your hard work. I was blown away by how much Pierrot has grown since I last saw it. I'm not done, but I need to take a break. (The Youtube is very interesting, but will require some research)--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm finding footnote-creation with the visual editor as easy as you said it was. Take a very long break—and maybe I'll have finished everything up by the time you look at the page again. (I had more or less resigned myself to losing all the Youtube connections, even the obviously public-domain ones.) Beebuk 13:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Dan S. Kennedy Deleted

Hi,

I got a message that the page was about to be deleted because it hadn't been edited. Yesterday I went in and added 5 reference links in support of a paragraph but it was deleted anyway.

Can you please undelete it, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHusnian (talk • contribs) 19:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Done @DavidHusnian: --S Philbrick (Talk) 19:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for Copy of Recently Deleted LL User Page

Hello, Sphilbrick. I don't believe we've had any "dealings" in the past here on Wikipedia. My name is Lord Laitinen, I have been editing here for over two years, and I have made thousands of contributions to Wikipedia. I see from your user page that you grant reasonable requests of copies of deleted pages. The page you recently deleted was primarily for my eyes only, though I did expect maybe a few others to see it. I ask that you allow me to view the text so I can save it elsewhere (I do not intend to re-write that subpage), such as in my sandbox or in a word document off of Wikipedia entirely? Thank you. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Done @Lord Laitinen: --S Philbrick (Talk) 22:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have moved the contents of that page into my sandbox where I know it's safe from deletion. I doubt any more than a remote few would see it there, either. Also, I blanked the subpage and nominated it for U1 speedy deletion. Thanks again, and go with God. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Pierrot laments

I'm sorry. Marchjuly is back, with more complaints. What he is suggesting is, frankly, above my head, so I come to you, cap in hand, once more. (There is no urgency to this: our Ireland trip is on the horizon, so I won't be touching Pierrot for a month or two.) All I'd like to know is how I can satisfy his objections in the simplest way. PLEASE do not interrupt your current occupations to attend to this. He sets out his complaints at the end of the Pierrot talk page. He seems to prefer reading a menu of a good meal instead of eating it. Beebuk 02:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Beebuk: I am not complaining about anything, I am only suggesting a tweaking of the format as a possible improvement. So, please try and give me the benefit of the doubt and do not assume that others editing the article to try and bring it more in line with the MOS are just intent on dismantling errors. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and I realize you have made substantial positive contributions to the article, but that does not equate to any form of ownership. Try sampling a little more of Wikipedia's menu, instead of focusing so much on the same thing all the time. It's a good way to become more familiar with how Wikipedia works and see how articles are improved in different ways incrementally over time. Everyone brings something different to the table and there's no need for one person to feel they have to do all the heavy lifting. Enjoy your vacation.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope you understand, Sphilbrick, that all I'm asking for is a directive—in dummy English, and AT YOUR LEISURE—for implementing Marchjuly's suggestions. They are gobbledeegook to me. Many many thanks. Beebuk 00:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I've reread Marchjuly's suggestions with a more settled mind and am convinced I can handle the new edits on my own. I'm happy to take this cup from your lips. I hope I won't be troubling you with more appeals in the future. Beebuk 14:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

OTRS template error

See the recently-placed template at Talk:Belarusian Trade-Economic University of Consumer Cooperation. Can you confirm and fix it? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Done @Wbm1058: --S Philbrick (Talk) 13:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Reason for deleting my page

Hi,

I saw that you deleted my page on Los Globos, the bar in Los Angeles. Could you tell me why? I wrote in terms of significance in the LGBTQ community so I would like the page to stay up so can you tell me what I can potentially change to keep it up?

--Aannggiiee00 (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Aannggiiee00

@Aannggiiee00: I restored it to User:Aannggiiee00/Los Globos. It is not close to ready. There are two references, neither formed correctly, which do assert that it might have been the location of the first rave, but you need more than that to establish notability. I urge you to continue working on it, then ask for a review, so that you get more feedback rather than just have it deleted.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

G-13 help

Hi. Can you take a look at Draft:V-Excel Educational Trust? I noticed that it is still open on my list, but isn't appearing on the list at G-13. Did I do something incorrectly? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Onel5969: There is something a little nonstandard, although I can't track down exactly what. I deleted it, but it was restored per request by JohnCD. However when one does a restoration, one normally has to remove the template or it automatically gets deleted again. The template appeared to be there, but it did not show up in the CSD category. My guess is JohnCD did something clever, but I don't see what it was. I've now removed the G 13 template. I soon John restored it because someone wanted to work on it I hope they do.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen

Hello, Sphilbrick. ScrapIronIV, who has been "stalking" my edits, actions, and I as of late, has nominated my sandbox to be deleted. I asked for you to restore my deleted subpage so that I could put that information in my sandbox. Could you please help me put this situation to bed? I'm just sick and tired of ScrapIronIV thinking he can control what is in my userspace, especially my sandbox, which is normally off-limits from deletion. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Your request was that you get a copy of this to store off-wiki. Your sandbox is in direct violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, and in violation of WP:POLEMIC. You specifically stated that you did not intend to rewrite it. It is full of vile and hateful statements directed against individuals with lifestyles you disagree with. You have provided an invitation on your user page for people to read it; thus you are using it as a subpage, even if it is your sandbox. Wikipedia is not a place for anyone to advertise hate-filled sentiments against groups of living people. It is also in violation of WP:UPNOT. This should have been deleted as offensive, but I simply tagged it for speedy, rather than taking you (and it) to AN/I over it. I know User:Sphilbrick will make the right call here. Continue to post such offensive material anywhere on Wikipedia, and It will go further. Scr★pIron^IV 13:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Scrapiron is correct. I assume you now say that page off-line. Please confirm so I can remove it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: I have read Wikipedia guidelines on this matter and I am confident that I am not in violation of anything. As long as there are not personal attacks, harassment, copyrighted material, or promotional materials/advertising, it is fine. If you would like to read this information yourselves, feel free. However, I will move this offline because I have no desire to conflict with either of you, or anyone else for that matter. ScrapIronIV, I hope we can get along in the future, and I offer you a very sound bit of advice. Do not let this victory make you feel invincible; another veteran user made that mistake in the past and ended up getting himself blocked over a very minor situation. There is no need to delete my sandbox, the information will be removed in a matter of minutes. God bless. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

ethnobotanist listing deletion

Hi my biography as a listed ethnobotanist was tagged for speedy deletion from the page list of ethnobotanists. The mention being "which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. This was done immediately after publishing and I do believe this to be due to perhaps a lack of some indicing or referencing criteria but should not be deleted for the said reason of lack of significance of the subject.

Please can you advise - I must admit that I am new to editing in wikipedia what inclusions may be necessary to reinstate the page. The research has been noted by experts in the field such as Jeremy Narby and Dennis Mckenna as being significant in contribution to the field. Kind Regards Jean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeansobiecki76 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jeansobiecki76: Please read auto. The deleted article did not even include a single reference, which is a bare minimum for an article about a living person. (I see an embedded url, which is not acceptable, but does not support notability.) You may well be notable, but it wasn't asserted in the article I deleted. It is highly discouraged to write about oneself.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

You recently deleted the article Jonathan Kent (Superboy) per A10. The article is properly written with reliable sources. As I explained on the talk page the article is not a duplicate copy but more of a split article. The existing Superboy article is the main page, with all the Superboys having individual article of their own that provides more detail about each of the character, and only a brief description on the main page. If I add all the information about the new Superboy (Jonathan Kent) to the main page it would be way too long, and making it into a new split article anyway. There are enough contents, references and notability for a new article and lot more information would be added to the page as the character has a focus in the current DC Comics stories. I would like to request the page restored. And can you also give me any advice and information about the current situation.--Rootone (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rootone: I userfied it here: User:Rootone/Jonathan_Kent_(Superboy). I suggest you start a discussion at Talk:Superboy to see if a consensus of editors agrees it deserves its own article.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleting TFD

In what I'm sure is a fairly funny misclick, you deleted Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 18. Mind undeleting it? ~ Rob^Talk 13:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Done, maybe. Sorry about that - I opened a number of pages for deletion, must have picked that one up by mistake. It doesn't have anything on it, although I did restore. Is it OK?--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Izno got to it; the last edit on the page had to be reverted since AnomieBOT automatically recreated it after deletion. Thanks! ~ Rob^Talk 13:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There is an ANI discussion where I mention you

Here it is[1]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Student Jesus pime sub page on Eduardo Serio (philanthropy)

Hi! One of the students had a subpage of his userpage deleted by you Jesus pime/Eduardo Serio (philanthropy). I saw your reasoning, (use of WP as a host) but this isnt what is going on. He is actually following directions that I gave him. Putting the information on the same page before manipulating it. Ive done this numerous times with no problem in developing articles. I did tell him to start over and put paraphrases in English to avoid this problem. Hopefully he doesnt have my issues of losing my place when I switch back and forth between two windows.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Thelmadatter: Thanks for the explanation, I restored it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Tim Lokiec

Hi Sphilbrick. I've done some work on the Tim Lokiec article but am unsure as to how to proceed due not only to the confusing AfD (way beyond my experience), but, also, wondering if this article will survive. Any guidance you can give me, as you're the nominator of this article, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Picomtn: sorry, but I don't really have any guidance to provide. The subject contacted Wikimedia via OTRS and I fielded the request. It is not uncommon for subjects to ask for an article to be deleted. We don't remove an article simply because a subject asked us to; what we do is offer to nominate an article at AFD if they request. He did, so I did. If the article is materially improved we may all win.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick. Did he say why he wanted it deleted? Should I continue trying to improve this article? When do you believe the AfD will be closed? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he appreciated some of the language in the earlier version. It does look better and it is worth improving. Afd's normally run seven days, this one was extended, but I'm not sure when it will end.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Undelete request: Draft:Zayo Enterprise Networks

Hi Sphilbrick,

We would like to have the draft page of Zayo Enterprise Networks undeleted so that we can resubmit another draft with more verifiable citations and sources. We have taken measures to change our name in order to correctly follow the best practices of Wikipedia's requirements. We will endeavour to keep this draft active by reviewing it weekly as it is a high priority for us. Please can you advise us on what is our next step to take in order to revive the draft. This is a link to the page: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Draft:Zayo_Enterprise_Networks&action=edit&redlink=1

Thank you, ryguy150

--Ryguy150 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ryguy150:

Done--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkpage abuse

Please revoke the ability to edit their own talk page for user:205.118.122.63. CLCStudent (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@CLCStudent: Rather infantile, but I don't see any value in revoking talk page access.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

They are disrupting the community by abusing their talk page. They are refusing to stop vandalizing their talk page. CLCStudent (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think blocking access to one's own talk page should be used very rarely, and this doesn't seem like a case requiring it. Especially given that it is an IP. Feel free to ask someone else who may reach a different conclusion.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Logo used by AIG in 2012.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Logo used by AIG in 2012.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, the SVG looks better.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yutaka Nanten page cleanup

Thanks for processing the CSD for Yutaka Nanten. Can you also help close out the related AFD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yutaka Nanten AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever closed an AFD. My guess is that someone with experience in the process will notice that the article has been deleted and close it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like it is cleaned up now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe this speedy deletion was inappropriate. I'm not sure what the article itself stated, it is clear from the article Cowboy Bebop that Yutaka Nanten was the creator of a manga series published by Kadokawa Shoten. Being the author of a work published by an actual publisher (i.e., not self published) is a claim to significance, and is sufficient to prevent an A7 speedy deletion. Keep in mind that the threshold to pass A7 is much lower than what is required to pass the actual notability guidelines. I'm not asking that the article be restored since it was clearly going to be deleted based on the AFD, but in the future please do not use A7 to delete articles on people with a claim to significance. Calathan (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

One irony is that I think I've noticed a number of nominations at CSD lately that, in my opinion should be at AFD. They might well fail to be articles but they deserve a more in-depth hearing than the opinion of one admin. I haven't followed up on this observation because having gathered enough information to bring it to the attention of the community, but I do think we need to be careful about summarily dismissing articles. That said, I note that the community allows exceedingly brief articles to be accepted as articles. Some editors take advantage of this, and boost their "articles created" count by slapping together a couple sentences with maybe one reference and calling it an article. The community seems to accept this, but this is an area where I hope the community will rethink the position. When an editor writes literally two sentences, and the only reference is a commercial link to a book which sells for the princely sum of $.43, We ought to rethink what we accept as minimal quality for an article. I've seen draft articles with substantially more content deleted. (To forestall the inevitable, the price of the book is not exactly relevant but we routinely articles about authors of books with a lot more coverage than this one.)--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I hate you

Ever since you said you liked my nominations at CSD I have been making them ever more elaborate. Tonight I have been doing rime riche and a simple iambic tetrameter. It is all your fault you bastard I hate you. There is a little doggerel over at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Non_business and it is all your fault, I hate you, you should not have got me started. Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

:) (Comment thanks to the tps, but this is fine.)--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What, no haiku, not even a limerick?--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that. But I hope you realise it's understandable given I'm autistic, and the amount of genuine stuff like that I've seen recently, such as this, this, and this. Adam9007 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

No need to be sorry - I'm impressed that you were trying to look out for me, so I appreciate the initiative. Thanks.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

My rhymes at CSD are becoming ever more doggerel

Just a thought, there is a great book edited by E. O. Parrott I am just going off memory and I think that is a pseudonym called How to be Well Versed in Poetry. Brilliant book, where a lot of the literary like puzzles and rhymes competitions in BRitish newspapers got published, little kinda games in the literary section, things like the Times Literary Supplement, that you got five quid for or whatever it was hardly the National Lottery not even just piecework for what you would get paid in the front section of the paper, just a bit of a literary game. There are lots by many famous real poets Wendy Cope I think has a few and a parody of John Betjeman my favourite poet and various others. You can probably pick up a copy on Google Books for twenty pence plus shipping or something, I think it would amuse you.

As you see from my front page, Trew's Inverse Law of Game Shows states that the stupider the game is the more money you win. Win Mastermind and you get a vase and a book token. Go on I dunno Bullseye and you get a small car or a caravan. (With the host Jim Bowen usually annoucing, if they lost, "look at what you could have won": The prize limit was strictly controlled by as was the the Independent Television Commission so we didn't have enormous prizes like the US had. I think the best take of that was Blankety Blank where the prizes were deliberately awful. Blankety blank cheque books and pens or as Les Dawson had it check pens and books are actually quite valuable now because they were only ever given out on the show. More valuable than any "prize" like a small fridge or a set of glasses that was purportedly on offer for 250 blanks. Si Trew (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: Funny - so the limited edition crap is now valuable because it is rare? --S Philbrick (Talk) 12:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much. When I was a young man there were free tickets to what was then BBC Television Centre now sadly gone and we would have a coach trip, a charabanc, to go down and see a show (lived about thirty miles north of London). I actually saw two recordings with the great Les Dawson, it is a pity to know that Terry Wogan died recently. With the warm-up comedian the audience were well in on the joke and I must say that there was never any forced laughter or retakes or anything like that, because the audience knew the prizes were rubbish they enjoyed the fun as much as the people front of camera did. It was an enormous piss-take really, a bit like I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue my favourite radio show (which coincidentally was first broadcast the day I was born), which is theoretically there to have comedians win points and prizes but is self-proclaimed "antidote to panel games" (at the piano is Colin Sell, and your chairman is Jack Dee). I think Dee took over Humphrey Lyttleton's role on his untimely death brilliantly as without imitiating him in any way suggesting he would rather be somewhere else and treating the whole proceedings with disdain). And this was pretty much the same, that it was kinda having a knock at ITV with their "super" prizes limited by the ITC to 5000 quid so it was kinda deliberately cheap.

(look at what you could have won this beautiful caravan or speedboat). It is actually not entirely inaccurate that Bullseye always had a caravan because for one season they actually were sponsored by a caravan making company but at the time under the ITC rules they could not say so. Just to nobody's surprise each week was a caravan, I think in another season they had a speedboat company offering the prizes which was I am sure most helpful to contestants in Birmingham (or Central Television as then was although it was made by Yorkshire Television for what people used to call Granadaland so it was all a bit mixed up).

Yes, because the Blankety Blank Cheque Book and Pen was (as far as I know) never given to anyone but the "losing" contestants they are, ironically, highly prized now. They come up on eBay from time to time. I don't know what they were made of the article says "cheap metal" but looked like pewter on the telly, but could have just been aluminium or brushed steel, I doubt they have a hallmark! You owe me a Betjemann Tantalus (cabinet) because I am full of useless information like that. (I also do have a genuine Betjemann tantalus but again they cost a lot of money I picked it up when someone wasn't looking. THe pics I think are from a Dutch guy cos he could do the pics better than me but I did most of the text. Unfortunately I fill them up and the missus keeps the key.) Si Trew (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Article Werner Clement

Hi!

The article "Werner Clement" I created had been undeleted. I'm new to this, and I don't know where I can see which changes should be made to the article for it to stay in the wikipedia.

Kind regards, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchetypeX33 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@ArchetypeX33: G-13 deletion are quite routine, and mostly depend on timing, not content, so I have no idea what is needed. I do see a message on the article with suggestions on who to ask.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I also left a welcome message on your talk page, with helpful links--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)