User talk:Mike Halterman/archive2

This archive is for notes addressed to me, written from June 21 to June 28, 2004.

Gay icons[edit]

Hello, yes I'd noticed someone was adding to the category just minutes after I'd created it. It made me smile. It's good when you give birth to something and start to see it grow. My other categories aren't doing so well, sad to say... --bodnotbod 01:12, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

I had a feeling you'd ask that. I'm not sure if I'm proud, but chiefly it's category:alcoholics. Sometimes I feel a bit horrid adding someone to it, but then again the category can rightly be applied to some of my favourite people. --bodnotbod 01:18, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

I just added Liz Taylor to alcoholics. But I know there must be thousands of them in the music industry - it's just a matter of finding which ones are just posing with a bottle in every picture, and which ones actually admit to a problem or have had treatment or, God forbid, died from drinking. --bodnotbod 01:31, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ooh, Jimi! Janis Joplin! TheCustomOfLife 01:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I added Joplin. Not sure about Hendrix - I know he choked on his, well, let's not go into it. I don't know whether he was an alcoholic or just unlucky. I'm not saying he wasn't, I just don't know that he is. --bodnotbod 03:00, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Creating pages from redirects[edit]

If Lucky 6.9 creates a redirect, and you later want to create that page separately, just type in, say [foo] and hit "go". You'll show up at the article "Bar (redirected from foo)", and foo will be a link. If you click on that link, you'll get the text of the redirect, which can then be edited. Good luck, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Grace Kelly, gay icon?[edit]

I would like to have proof of Grace being a gay icon!!! What sources do you have for this? Rienzo 18:13, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

She's fabulous and glamorous. There doesn't need to be a gay-wide vote. I'm adding her back and I suggest you don't delete her again, or else I'll have to go to mediation. TheCustomOfLife 18:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, so "fabulous" and "glamorous" are the criteria for being a gay icon? Why don't you label some more celebrities as gay icons? We can't categorize people as gay icons only because we, i.e. you, see something in them. That is totally subjective and POV. Let's go to mediation! Rienzo 18:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you read the description for the category, it is very subjective because what may be gay to you may not be gay to someone else. Personally, I really don't understand what you have in this subject that's so emotionally invested that you won't allow her name placed there. TheCustomOfLife 18:44, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tell me why it is so IMPORTANT for you to label Grace Kelly "gay icon"! What are your reason? Rienzo 18:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Answer my question first. I do not find answering questions with questions amusing. TheCustomOfLife 18:48, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see, I have to remind you: I asked you this question FIRST "I would like to have proof of Grace being a gay icon!!! What sources do you have for this?" Quit wasting more time, and answer the question!! Rienzo 18:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was not wasting time. I will be straight-up and tell you that there is no proof other than my opinion. Greta Garbo does have "proof", so I'm reinstating that.

I'm looking forward to seeing some "proof" of Grace Kelly being a "gay icon"! Why is it a big issue for the gay movement to tarnish sweet and romantic actresses? Rienzo 19:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tarnish, eh? So you admit that you're taking these people off the list because you don't see them fit for admiration by gay people? I'm horribly offended. TheCustomOfLife 19:05, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Gotcha into the trap! I knew you would react like that. So pathetic! This wiki is supposed to be NPOV. Your categorizing every actress in sight as a gay icon is OUT OF ORDER! Rienzo 19:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You caught me...? I don't know what you were trying to catch me doing. I did not categorize every actress in sight, either. I sincerely believed every one I categorized was a gay icon. You bring up some more and I'll tell you why I put them there. TheCustomOfLife 19:42, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why is this crusade so important for you? Are you so devoid of female role models? Rienzo 19:45, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I could ask the same of you, and I think I have, and I think you have, and I think you've asked me if I've asked you and you've asked me...get it? It's circular argument. I won't touch the Grace Kelly issue again but I don't guarantee anyone else won't. And please refrain from attacking me. I have not done that to you and I would like common courtesy. TheCustomOfLife 19:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Point taken, girlie! ;) Rienzo 19:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Don't be patronizing. TheCustomOfLife

IC! U can't take a joke! Too bad for ya! Rienzo 20:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can take a joke just fine, when it's funny and not trying to mock my sexuality. If you're going to do that, kindly desist talking to me. TheCustomOfLife 20:05, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know much about Grace Kelly, so I can't realy help you in this fight. I guess I would say let it go. Or, if you're sure, find some nettle you can grasp. I tried a search with my British news sources to see if they considered she was one. I also looked at a google search of "Grace Kelly" "gay icon" and, well, nothing really came up. Let's not fight about it, eh? --bodnotbod 03:30, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

I was just reading the thread back. Both of you try and chill out a little.

I think there's gonna be a lot of arguments with categorising people. The way I do it is to look at some trusted news sources and see if they name-check those people as gay icons or whatever it is the category I'm putting them in. Come on, let's not argue.

And don't start insulting each other. Personal insults may result in you being banned or reprimanded in some way. Bear in mind that everything you do is recorded here. Be happy. Wikipedia is great. Take care of each other. --bodnotbod 03:36, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

...the argument had ended hours ago. See the timestamps? Besides, I maintain that I did not insult him at all. Threaten, maybe, but not insult. It doesn't matter anyway. I try to help and this is what it gets me? An argument and then a warning even after the argument had long since died out? TheCustomOfLife 03:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oooh. Take a breath. You're both fine. "Threaten, maybe"? ;o) Now, come on. It's good that it ended. As far as the timestamps go, well, you know, sometimes things don't get answered for days. --bodnotbod 03:51, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

I think you missed the point about the timestamps, but there is no point in stretching this out so I'll let that one go. "Happy editing?" Does that mean we're going our separate ways? Because, speaking for myself only...I don't want that to happen. TheCustomOfLife 03:52, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OBE[edit]

I think it would be impossible to list all individuals, or even a significant number of individuals, who have been granted the OBE. According to Royal.gov, there are more than 100,000 recipients currently living. I think it would be difficult to find lists of early recipients. For recent years, however, one may look at the Honours Lists from the BBC Websites:

-- Emsworth 01:33, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Wikiproject Television Stations[edit]

Pretty cool. I was mostly on a tear changing articles with [[Seattle]] to [[Seattle, Washington]] when I happened on those two TV stations, and added the note about CBS because I was curious and looked it up, so I figured why waste the research.
Looks like you've been busy. You've been here less than 3 weeks, and already working on projects--and I thot I had gotten up to speed quickly. Each of my first two thousand edits took a month apiece, although my third only took two weeks.
Anyway, I'm interested in your input on a project I've been working on (well, off and on) for a couple months--a "guide" to follow-up the Wikipedia tutorial, covering things like some of the suggestions I gave you early on, and similar things. By the time you contacted me, you had pretty much gotten a handle on most of the formatting and other stuff in the Tutorial, so referring you there didn't make any sense. But I find most other WP documentation to be too comprehensive and spread out to be of much use early on--it's too hard to find the important info in all the noise. Anyway, I've got 3 pages drafted, and an outline to give an idea of things I think it should or could include starting at User:Niteowlneils/Guide outline. I'd be interested if you think it is clear so far, and is relevant to the intended audience (people who have mastered the topics in the tutorial, but are too new to know Wikipedia standards and quirks (like the case sensitivity), etc.) trying to follow the style of the tutorial; concise coverage of two or three key points per page in 5-10 pages. Also, if you have any suggestions on which of the proposed topics you think should be highest priority to include, or topics I've missed that you've learned that you wish you knew from the start, or things you'd recommend not including, and those sorts of thing. Niteowlneils 06:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some thoughts[edit]

I'll try to be neither polite nor rude, neither formal nor condescending, etc. :-) I would humbly suggest that it's time to relax, Custom, I think. I have no idea how you've been treated here in other places, but what I see at featured article candidates is hugely mild. People are raising objections in a fairly calm way -- you may think some of them are not well thought out, not logically consistent, etc., but they're from well-meaning contributors whom I know pretty well from my year here, and who I know have nothing in mind but what they feel is best for Wikipedia. The problem is, this is such a big place, a lot of visions collide on occasions. The only thing to do, I've found, is to relax a bit. Remember that this project moves slowly to accept new ideas and approaches because it's huge and therefore its social inertia is pretty significant. Remember that a bad version of a particular article can stay up for hours or days without its being disastrous. Remember that everything here is the product of the collaborative effort of disagreeing minds -- it's how the wiki gets things done. I'm not suggesting that you don't know these things, but I find it good to be reminded of them. Recently I got frustrated and took two weeks off.....I got some nice comments during that time, and it reminded me of these principles. The best thing to do is contribute and ignore the rest of the stuff -- ignore which articles get featured and who gets to be an admin and what they're talking about on the village pump, and simply write. It's the most fulfilling thing about being here. Eventually, you'll find yourself drawn in to the bookkeeping, drawn-out discussion, policy consideration aspect of the site, but it's always your choice to do that, and your choice to skip it. We have tons of great articles that aren't featured, for a variety of reasons. It's not worth getting yourself bent out of shape about. You're a good editor, and I want you to stick around. That's why I'm giving you this advice -- because I think it's too easy to flame out when stuff like this comes up (a controversial nom of an article written largely by you), and I don't want you to wash your hands of the place. Stay calm, and write stuff. It's why all of us came here in the first place (well, all legitimate contributors) -- not to get famous, not to make money, not to get into long conversations about optimal font styles, but to write about stuff we like, and to do it in such a way that it is factual and neutral, and advances the knowledge of all humanity. I hope you can focus on that and ignore the flak. I'm sorry it hit you so hard these first few weeks. If there's anything I can do to help you, or to intervene with someone who's treating you harshly, please let me know. I'll do what I can. Keep up the fine contributions, and don't let 'em get you down. :-) Jwrosenzweig 18:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about people making up their minds in advance -- all I can advise is to continue writing excellent soap opera articles (or whatever else you like) until they are too valuable and well-written to be ignored. People do change their minds around here....it just takes time and excellence.....both of which I suspect you have. Good luck. Jwrosenzweig 18:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think people are chastising you for writing it all yourself. It's simply that it's almost impossible to write a completely neutral article as one human being, especially if it's something you care about. C. S. Lewis is my favorite author -- I don't believe anyone at Wikipedia has read as much of his work as many times as I have. But if I wrote an article on him myself, despite the fact that I would seek always to be neutral and the fact that I would know more facts, perhaps, than anyone, it would still have weaknesses. People aren't saying you shouldn't have written the article....just that it will inevitably be strengthened by the additions and perspectives of others, and we should allow some time for that to happen. Someone here will notice it and know the show at some point soon....perhaps a user, or perhaps an anonymous editor wandering through. The idea is, it's good to give time for articles to have that occur, especially when articles are very dependent on any single editor (be they new or old, well-liked or unknown). That's all I think anyone is saying, and if they're being more rude than that, I hope you'll tell me where so I can have a chat with them. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 19:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I had read those comments, but I just went back to refresh my memory. I think DropDeadGorgias's initial reaction was too harsh, although not intended to offend. DDG saw an article that they felt was too much from a fan's perspective to be considered at this point as an FA. I think DDG did not take enough time to be tactful, though I think it a stretch to call it rude -- they were clear about what their objection was, and that the objection was to the tone and phrasing of the article, not to you personally (although I would suggest that you seem to have taken it personally -- we often do around here, in spite of everyone's best intentions). I think, though, that when you responded, DDG realized they had been too harsh -- DDG's later comments, while remaining firm about the article, are much more conciliatory and careful to avoid offending. When you refused to give ground to DDG's objections (whether rightly or no, I cannot say), DDG got a little frustrated and gave up. I think it's a case where DDG said the wrong thing, and then tried to rectify it later, but by then you'd been offended and didn't want to listen to what DDG had to say. That's just my perspective, and it may well be wrong. But I think you're taking it too hard, and that DDG is guilty of, at most, being a little too quick to offer criticisms without phrasing them carefully, and that they didn't intend to offend you at all. A note on their talk page might be a good thing. Just a thought. If you'd rather not, then I suggest putting this in the past, and, as I suggested before, focusing on writing, which you seem to do well. Jwrosenzweig 19:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One last comment for you, Custom, in reply to your note on my talk page. This site is not a place that embraces people who want to remain the kind of writers who "don't take criticism well", although we welcome those that are willing to learn to accept criticism. The whole idea of a wiki is give-and-take, compromise, criticism, and resolution. You have to be open to that if you're going to contribute. Recognizing you don't take criticism well is important....but that recognition needs to be accompanied by an acceptance that you want to work on that. :-) It's difficult for me also, but I've grown a lot in the year I've been here, and I like that. And I want to emphasize again -- I've said this many times, and you seem unwilling to hear it, but I'll say it again -- no one is calling your writing crap. We have over a quarter of a million articles. Only a couple of hundred are "featured". That means that when someone says an article you've written "isn't ready for featured" or "isn't professional enough to be featured", all they're saying is that it hasn't yet joined the pantheon....the top .1% of articles here. And that's nothing to be ashamed of, so I suggest you stop trying to convince yourself we all hate you here. We don't. We like your writing. We think it needs refining. So does the writing of every contributor here. That's the whole idea of a wiki. I hope you can learn to love it: I have. Good luck, Jwrosenzweig 19:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I concur. Writing is a learned skill, and requires diligence and practice. Time and again a famous author, when interviewed, will say that it's their longstanding habit to write at least a few hours a day, and that it took them years to be considered good. It's especially complicated here because Wiki contributions are a form of genre writing, which unlike free writing, demands an extra level of discipline. Not to sound ageist, or to condescend, but you write very well for an eighteen year old. Much better than any peer I recall in high school.

And speaking of things that are old, I remember watching two of the soaps you follow when I was five or six. That'd be 25 years ago. Does that old guy Victor, the one that spends his time marrying young women and being jealous of them, still appear in any of them? --Clarknova 02:53, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi mate, I think your (very nice) articles on supercouples named in the form e.g. Jack and Vera shold be as Jack and Vera Duckworth unless they are really commonly known as such?

Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From Bod[edit]

Hello, I wasn't cold shouldering you I've been suffering a lot of ill health lately so I rested up a couple of days. I didn't mean anything portentous by happy editing, I'm sure our paths will continue to cross on occasion as tends to be the case in my (limited) experience here at Wikipedia - and I look forward to seeing your edits. --bodnotbod 17:36, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would like to keep a correspondence if you don't mind. You don't, do you?

At the moment I'm stressing over an anonymous user who is totally messing up all my planned supercouple articles. Mike H 17:38, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Judge Judy[edit]

I thought that, given that she appeared on TV in that role, actress was the best term. I'll defer to your (can't resist) judgment, though. Was she actually a judge? Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello! :)

Yes, she was a judge. She was profiled on 60 Minutes in 1993, was it? Anyway, that's actually how she got the show; the now-producers thought her no-nonsense attitude would be great for a judge show. None were on the air when she debuted (The People's Court went off the air in 1993). Mike H 17:55, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

British sitcoms[edit]

Did you? Oh, I didn't notice. Well, sort them out as you see fit. I'm sure lots of categories are slightly muddled right now, they'll all eventually get resolved, I imagine. Appreciate your help ;o) --bodnotbod 01:03, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oops sorry, for replying in the wrong place, someone did that to me once and it was mildly annoying. Apologies --bodnotbod 01:48, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Big thanks[edit]

I take your point; it was arbitrary & capricious of me to award Lucky a barnstar and not make the same award to you: but if it helps, I have noticed TheCustomOfLife chipping away night after night on RecentChanges, and *am* mighty appreciative of you spending your time clearing up after the b-movie vandal, and for all your other edits. All this wading around in substubs and plain badly written articles saps the strength ... I wouldn't want you to think your effort passes by unnoticed. best wishes --Tagishsimon

Merging Fox affiliates[edit]

There was no link for anything else, so I started List of Fox affiliates a while ago. Can you merge these? Mike H 17:54, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean merge List of Fox affiliates with List of FOX Television affiliates? I'll start on it right now (if that's not what you meant, please leave me a note on my talk page). Thanks -Frazzydee 19:03, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, that was what I meant. Thanks! Mike H 19:05, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Anne Kirkbride[edit]

You reminded me that I forgot to put in anything about her brush with cancer. Maybe you'd like to add that. Cheers Deb 18:40, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Corrie screencaps[edit]

Hi Mike. No, sorry, I don't have any screencaps from Corrie -- I'm happy to say I haven't watched it since Arthur Lowe played Mr Swinley in 1968! -- Arwel 20:30, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ABC Family[edit]

You're welcome to add info on the history of ABC Family. I didn't have cable TV in my residence until 2000 or 2001, so I'm unaware of a lot of stuff that happened before that time. —Mulad 02:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jerry Booth[edit]

Now I'm not sure about that. She certainly worked for Len Fairclough, although I'm not sure if that was before or after she married Ray. To be honest, that was in the period when I didn't watch the prog. I remember that Jerry was married to Myra Dickinson, played by Susan Jameson, who later starred in a few other series, such as Take Three Girls and When the Boat Comes In, but I don't really know what happened to him after she walked out. Deb 14:17, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes. What I meant was, I don't know whether Deirdre was working there because she was married to Ray, or whether she had worked there before, and that was how she met Ray. Deb 16:29, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, right. Well, I used to watch it when I was little, because my parents did, and then they stopped watching, and then I went to college, and I only started watching it again in about 1977 or 1978, which was about the time Ray left. Deb 16:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi mate, I'm around, I didn't think it was worth reeplying to a thankyou note. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I always expect a reply. It makes me feel loved and all that jazz. :D Mike H 20:42, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

--

Hello :)). Very nice of you to visit me and my page, no one came to chat in a while, probably because I've just been putting around lately :). Thanks for visiting, a really good place to chat is on #Wikipedia on irc.freenode.net, about 100 wikipedia people are there, i use my regular nick there. See you :). --ShaunMacPherson 23:11, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I missed you in the chat. I was AFK, as usual. Lots of ppl there though, about 100, fun place to go. See you later! --ShaunMacPherson 05:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the nice welcome on my page. And yes, you were first to welcome me. ;) --User:CannedLizard June 28th