User talk:Rossrs/archive1

User:Rossrs/archive1

Kylie Minogue

Sorry it took so long to get back to you! I've read through it. I personally think that it talks about the music in some depth, and I think it would be good enough to go on FAC :-) Ta bu shi da yu 13:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re. Washington Post quote: Yeah, I thought it was just too good to ignore; although I love the gal, I think "the worst actress in the English speaking world" is a fairly accurate description of her acting abilities ;-). Bio-Dome was on Dutch TV recently, as part of a "Kylie night", and it was pretty horrific. It was followed by Street Fighter, but I didn't have the stamina to suffer through that as well... I'll make another sweep through the article when you're done editing, to avoid any further conflicts. --Plek 16:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One other thing: do you think we can do any better with the image at the top (the one from the "Slow" set)? Maybe it's just me, but I think she looks like an automaton in it. I know I called her a "drone" before, but this might be streching the metaphor a bit too far. :) --Plek 17:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kylie in her sandbox
Re: Kylie in her sandbox: Yup, it's getting better. I like the idea of using screenshots. The "Ophelia" link is great! Not being able to leave someone else's sandbox alone, I've jumped right in and started experimenting a bit. Things I did:

• Increased gamma and saturation of the "Better the Devil You Know" screenshot. It's somewhat better defined now.
• Replaced the Body Language cover with my own handywork: a capture of Body Language Live a.k.a. Money Can't Buy. I think it's quite a powerful image.
• Cropped the Fever Live image a bit to remove clutter. It's still a bit crowded for such a small image, so you might want to try to capture a tighter shot from the show.
• Cropped "Did it Again" capture as well.

Some other, random observations:

• Let's edit the opening paragraph. "She has evolved her musical and visual style to attain longevity in the competitive field of pop music" sounds like it's lifted from a posh art brochure.
• Next paragraph: "Her sister Dannii Minogue is also a pop singer. She first came to attention as a child actor...", is "she" referring to Minogue the bigun or the littleun? (I know, but the reader won't at first).
• "The release of her Greatest Hits album in 1992 coincided with her departure from Stock, Aitken and Waterman.", followed by some text about the album. Wouldn't it be more interesting to say something about her split with SAW here instead (reasons, motivation, some quotes maybe)?
• General comment: I think the article still has too many of the following:
  • "Album/single "X" did so and so in this and that chart"
  • "Magazine "Y" said this and that about so and so Album/single"

Think you could snip some of the less essential ones and leave the juicy/interesting bits? My first choice for deep-six action would be the tired Britney/Christina comparisons and some of The Austrialian's quotes. I really think we need to trim down the size of this beast, although I'm not quite sure how. Snipping nonessential review/charts stuff might be a start.

• Parlophone is Nick Cave's label, isn't it? Did he get Kylie to leave Deconstruction? It might be interesting to explore why she switched labels again (then again, it might not... maybe I'm looking for juice where none is to be found).

Just let me know what you think. I'll try to find some sources for the various suggestions I made (tomorrow, when I'm slightly more coherent). Cheers. --Plek 00:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: "she looks like a 60s Bond girl or something": Heh, heh, you're a lot closer than you might think. I've transcribed a section of the BLL DVD, which explains where things are coming from. I think some of it could go at the beginning of the Body Language album paragraph or in the "Image" section to shed light on her creative direction in this period. The calender imagery [1] also makes a lot more sense when knowing this.

Q: "Apparently you chose Brigitte Bardot as a source of inspiration?"

Kylie: "Hmm, hmm... I worked very closely with my stylist, who is also my creative director. We were just flipping though books and saw some great images and everything more or less stemmed from there. I mean I just tended to think of BB as, well, she's a sexpot, isn't she? She's one of the greatest pinups. But she was fairly radical in her own way at that time. And we chose to reference the period, which was, I think, a perfect blend of coquette and rock and roll."

From Body Language Live DVD, Money Can't Buy (2003) pre-show press conference --Plek 11:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aloha! I've continued tweaking the article here and there. Just browse through the history and dump anything you don't like. It is coming together, yes. I think the main remaining eyesore are the last two paragraphs of the "Image" section. The "gay icon" paragraph starts with "early in her career", thus breaking the temporal flow (although this is only a minor point, I think). The last paragraph is more troublesome. "Accepted by a wider audience than just fans" is quirky. It looks like an assorted heap of unrelated triviods, with the final statement being unintentionally funny. My thoughts when reading that, after everything that has gone before, were: "Gawd... ALL that trouble just to get your name on a POSTAGE STAMP???". Surely there must be a better way to end the article, methinks... Any ideas on how to turn this whimper into a bang? Cheers. --Plek 23:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

G'day! Just wondering if you got my e-mail regarding the fact-checking request to Blamey. Wikipedia has seen some rough times recently, so I'm not sure if my message got through. Thanks. --Plek 06:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*Kicks Wikipedia again* Forget the mail feature. It seems to be dead. I've added the mail to the talking sandbox: User talk:Rossrs/Sandbox#Blamey email. I'd like to hear your comments before I send it (which I won't do anyway before this snail gains some speed). Thanks. --Plek 16:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Greetings! Well, the mail is in the mail, as the saying goes. Fingers crossed. Also, I drafted a FAC proposal in my sandbox. I was thinking it would be a good idea to list the changes made since the last FAC attempt, but on the other hand it might be a bit over the top. Just edit at will and let me know what you think.

In other, unrelated, news today, I have listed Madonna at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. I think the article has become an unwieldy monster that is very much in need of improvement. It certainly (IMHO) isn't worthy of a FA status anymore. So, if you are in need of a new Big Project... ;-)

Finally, I'm sure you're just gonna love the latest category addition to Anne Frank... Cheers. --Plek 21:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here we go! Created: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Kylie Minogue. --Plek 22:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not a single objection. Hmmm. Either the article was truly excellent, or people got so fed up being spammed with Kylie FACs, they just swallowed their pride and relented... I'd choose the latter, obviously :). Nice work, sir! I really enjoyed cooperating on it, so feel free to recruit me for any future projects. Thanks, and adios! --Plek 00:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anne Frank

Excellent job on the edits! Just to let you know that I moved the Peer Review request to the archive at Wikipedia:Peer review/February 2005. Cheers. --Plek 11:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excellent that it's on FAC... about to go vote support! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hiya! Well, I managed to find the official press release from the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science about the infamous missing five pages. Turns out that the Ministry paid US$ 300.000 to get them back. I have added a paragraph about this episode in the "Publication" section, with references to the PR and to an annefrank.org article. Could you take a look at it? Feel free to edit at will. Thanks! --Plek 16:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*Salutes* Three cheers for a job well done! Now let's hope some good things will happen to The Diary of a Young Girl. --Plek 01:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've requested Anne Frank to be featured on the main page in March, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of her demise. See: Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article#Request: Anne Frank. Greetings. --Plek 22:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You'd better watch the main page today (7 March)... ;-) --Plek 23:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aloha! Are you on holiday yet? If not: there's a comment from a new user at Talk:Anne Frank#Irving paragraph that you might want to take a look at. I think he's got a point about removing at least some of the Irving material from the article. Yes, the deniers' objections are important because they form the basis for the whole authentication buisiness, but do we really need to quote the man? I'm not sure what to think. I do see that this issue could be a sensitive one to people; it's not as trivial as Bob Gulla making Pia Zadora comparisons, in any case. Could you shine some light on this matter? Cheers. --Plek 10:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kids

Hello, an anon left the following paragraph on the Kids (song) page:

In this song, Robbie Williams and Kylie Minogue represent two people who do not have kids and are :trying to have one. At the end of the video of this song, Robbie Williams and Kylie Minogue are in a :swimming pool and look ready to kiss when the camera switches over to a bottle of bubbly spilling :over, suggesting that Kylie in the video has been inpregnated, hence the title 'Kids'.

I'm not sure if this is vandalism or an appropriate description of the meaning of the video/song. I know the lyircs quite well, and have seen the video, and I do not think it has anything to do with anything. However, I'm not exposed to enough Kylie out here in North America to know the true meaning of this song. I was wondering if you could shed some light on this issue. Thanks -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi EarlAndrew, I don't think this is the correct interpretation and yet at the same time I don't think it's vandalism. I think it's somebody's (the contributor's?) personal interpretation of the lyrics rather than the songwriter's intention, and as such, should be removed. As it's neither complete nonsense, or something offensive, I don't think it's vandalism. From what I've read in a Robbie Williams interview the meaning is more like, the couple are not happy together but are staying together because of the kids "I don't mind doing it for the kids". The lyrics are quite cryptic - Kylie said in another interview she didn't really know what it was all about, she was just given it to sing. I think therefore any interpretation of the lyrics should have a reference to support the inclusion. Rossrs 02:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's what I figured. The lyrics don't really make any sense to me, but I still love the song! -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:27, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Aussie noticeboard

G'day Rossrs, may I recommend that you add you name under the List of Australian Wikipedians and check out the Aussie noticeboard. Always great to see another Aussie contributor. Regards Ianblair23 12:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Tom Brinkman

You were kind enough to support my nomination of Helen Gandy as a featured article and I wonder if you would look at my newest FAC, Tom Brinkman. The voting page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom Brinkman/archive1. Say, did the Sharon Tate FAC make it through or not? PedanticallySpeaking 14:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue

Kylie's sister Danni, has admitted to the press that it grew back after sugery and that she is getting Chemo & radiotherapy.

I am the man who asked Jay Leno to have Kylie on and she appeared on February 4th 2002.

I asked Carson Daly to host Dannii later that year.

Supercool Dude 13:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

And I am the man who wrote half of the current Kylie Minogue article with another contributor, and spent weeks researching the subject to ensure accuracy, so I'm interested in seeing it maintain its integrity. First of all, please follow the existing pattern of citing references which is not only a "nice to have", but also a requirement, especially with an article that is currenty listed as a Featured Article. That just keeps the article clean and consistent. I did not dismiss your edit without checking it as thoroughly as I could. I did a google search for any recent news articles, plus I looked at the two most "official" Kylie Minogue (kylie.com and limbo.com) sites and saw nothing to support your edit about Minogue's "returning malignancy". Finally, I live in Australia where the media coverage has been at almost saturation point regarding Minogue's medical condition over the last few weeks, and not one word has been reported on the cancer returning. The woman can barely sneeze without it making the front pages of the papers here, so a returning malignancy would have been mentioned, I'm certain, especially if word came from as reliable a source as her sister, Dannii Minogue. So I disagree that it should be added into an article that should deal with fact, and not conjecture, your contributions to Minogue's career in the USA notwithstanding.Rossrs 13:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Radcliffe FAC

Thank you for supporting Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ted Radcliffe. I am glad that you liked the article. I got quite involved in the subject in the writing of it. A year ago I knew nothing of Negro Leagues baseball; now I keep buying books on the subject! —Theo (Talk) 18:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Birth and death dates

Rossrs said: Hi, I notice you've been going through putting IMDb links onto a lot of celeb articles - which I think is great and it's something I've been thinking about doing ... but haven't. I'm a bit concerned about the changes to the "born-died" part at the beginning of the article. I've seen the "born xxx" and "died xxx" format used in a lot of other types of works and I think it's fine, but it's not the accepted format here, so it's making the bio articles inconsistant with the other bio articles here. I thought maybe you haven't realized this, or read the Manual of style in relation to this – Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death. cheers 11:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I know, I've been adding the born ( ); died ( ) template quite thoroughly in recent days, the reason for that was that I saw several all like this, thus thinking that I should do the same, before seeing two or three which were different, and I thought they needed standardizing one way or the other. Maybe I made the wrong decision as to which way to go. Please can I have your opinion on the matter? Bobo192|Edits

I understand completely. I'm also a fan of standardizing and I've been caught numerous times making heaps of edits and then finding out it wasn't correct. My advise would be to stop changing them, and stick to the format in the Manual of Style. I don't know how many bio articles there are on wiki but before I sent that message I looked up a cross section (historical figures/writers/sportspeople/painters/politicians) etc to see if there were any variations and they seem to generally stick to the Manual of style. So now, in the total pool of bio articles, there is a tiny percentage that show "born" and "died". I don't think it's any big deal because they'll get edited back somewhere in the future. I don't mind reverting any that I notice from here on, so it's not a problem. Rossrs 11:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Despite me being one to shy away from leaving a (rather substantially entered) task unfinished at all times, I understand the problem. It's my fault for being the pernickety type who looks at brackets and wants to know immediately what they see, and to leave nothing up to presumption - particularly those born circa (date) or whatever. I will stop for now, but if I see anything that needs editing up, I'll attempt to do these as per a consistent system. Thank you. Bobo192|Edits

Rossrs said: Just had another look at the Style Manual. The opening paragraph talks about the advantage of standardizing, but it also goes on to say that it's offered as a suggestion, and that individual editors do not have to follow it.

Apologies for the rather quick turnaround in opinion (I'm always one to do the same and I've never forgiven myself, to be honest). I just think it's useful sometimes, that when the place of birth is not included in the second paragraph, it's always useful to have in the birthdate, in which case, I'd rather separate letters from numbers by semicolons than dashes, et cetera. Sorry. Bobo192|Edits

Rossrs said: I know what you mean and I suppose it's a question of taste ie whatever you think looks best. For me, it makes that opening appear cluttered and I like it to be, well, uncluttered. The alternative would be to add a sentence into the beginning of the bio for the place of birth, and at the end for the place of death. As I said, it's a question of taste, so not really a right or a wrong, but that's what I'd do.

That was really my other option of how to handle the situation and would have been nice had I have thought of it when I had started. I'm not sure what to do.. I think I'm going to continue with some which I feel need this information added in and leave others, mainly depending on how much information is there already. When this template takes up half the article, it seems bad news to me. Bobo192|Edits

RE: Lucien Ballard

Sir, I did some re-modeling and put on some additions to the Ballard article. Also I added a note to the talk page about the addition of another wife, Inez, and two sons. I hope that you can review both pages for me. Thanks ! WikiDon 18:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

re: Henry Fonda FAC

I noticed your interest in the Henry Fonda FAC [2]. Since your last posting, the issue with images has been addressed, as well as some smaller issues. Any additional comments and criticism for the article are greatly appreciated. Thank you. Volatile 03:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

==Blondie==

If people are free to edit anything they want, then what I am doing is not wrong. You are freely editing the page, then I am freely editing the page. So how is that vandalism? Scaryspice 09:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

==Blondie==

If people are free to edit anything they want, then what I am doing is not wrong. You are freely editing the page, then I am freely editing the page. So how is that vandalism? Scaryspice 09:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

==Blondie==

If people are free to edit anything they want, then what I am doing is not wrong. You are freely editing the page, then I am freely editing the page. So how is that vandalism? Scaryspice 09:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Back Again

Rossrs,
I don't think I thanked you for supporting my Tom Brinkman FAC nomination. I'm grateful and pleased to note it was successful. I've got another FAC now, the next congresswoman from Ohio, Jean Schmidt. The FAC page is here. I hope to get it featured by September 6, the day she will be sworn in. I'd appreciate your support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC) (P.S. If you are worried about the "fair use" of her picture, when she's sworn, we'll be able to replace it with a nice U.S. government public domain photo.)

More on actor bio pages

Hi again. I thought I'd put to you a predicament which I've come across and not thought of a decent answer. I've noticed that so many of the actor bio pages are full of filmographies, which I think is how they should be. Now, one of the things we should definitely do is complete some articles on Wikipedia films and categorize them by [[Year films]], etc.

Another thing we need to do, is ensure disambiguation between normal words and film titles, for example, on the Loretta Young page to ensure disambiguation between [[Kismet]] and [[Kismet (movie)|Kismet]]. Fancy joining me in making sure these are fixed up? Thank you. Bobo192|Edits 10:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thunderball FAC

I went through the images found on Thunderball and added rationale and sources etc. I'm hoping that by informing you you'll take a look and possibly notify me if there are any further problems as well as perhaps reconsider your opposition to it being a Featured Article. Thank you. K1Bond007 23:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot to finish the picture of Ian Fleming. Thanks, I fixed it. K1Bond007 02:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Kammerlader

Hi. I applogies for 'spamming' your talkpage like this, but some time ago you was helpfull with comments on one of 'my' other articles on old Norwegian rifles and I wondered if you might be interested in helping out peer reviewing the article on the Kammerlader. Thank you for your time. WegianWarrior 11:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

At it again

Hey, haven't seen you around lately. You doing okay? Hope all is well in your corner of the globe.
I'm back at it again with my Bruce Johnson article, nominated as a FAC. He's Ohio's lieutenant governor and already at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bruce Johnson are votes opposing. I know I am a pest, but I find when I don't go out and ask folks such as yourself for their votes, my FAC's invariably are defeated. So I'd be grateful if you'd put your two cents worth in. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 18:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sysop

You aren't interested in running for adminship? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nichalp. Yes I'm interested, but I know that my time is very erratic. I don't want to take on something and then not be able to follow through on it. Thanks for asking though. Rossrs 13:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you ever feel confident of bearing the extra burden, please let me know, I'll nominate you; or you can go ahead and nominate yourself, and I'll be sure to support you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

FAC

Well I've removed the two noms and notified the nominator. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Denis Law FAC

Hi,

Just wanted to thank you for sorting out the table columns. The Support vote was appreciated too :-) I'm pleased to say that it passed.

Cheers, CTOAGN 19:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Jacaranda Tree Photo

I uploaded a photo for the Jacaranda page and noticed it was removed by yourself. I am not into licenses or copyright and I do not care about the use of my image in anyway, so I just used the tag fair use because I thought it was most appropriate. Could you tell me what to tag images with in the future? Is there one for "any use" possible? Could you put my image back into the page? Shiftchange 22:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply regarding images and licensing. All the images I have uploaded are photos that I took myself so I should of tagged them public domain. I put my photo back on the jacaranda page, but I had a little trouble placing it correctly so I just put it at the end, where it looks ok. Naturally if you think it would better in a different position you should edit it yourself. I should probably change my other 10 images licensing information too. - Shiftchange 21:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Rossrs

Rossrs, I dont know if you remember or not, but an article I had written Crazy in Love had gotten nominated for FAC. It looks like it failed as I didnt redo the references in time. I'd like to renominate it soon and Im going to fix the references too, and Ive done some other edits, but would there be a way for it to pass without going through the scrutinity of the debate over charts? I don't mind fixing other things, but this is something I really don't think should be changed. I know Winnermario compromised to get the article to where it is today with the charts. Im just wondering if you think its feasible for it to pass without having to give that up. In light of these new objections, I really wish I would have just fixed the references back then OmegaWikipedia 12:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The Crackpot Mouse

For this comment (among others), I (Extraordinary Machine) award The Crackpot Mouse to Rossrs for his/her admirable upholding of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. 14:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Me again

Hey Rossrs, thanks for your advice. I asked Raul what he thought about that matter, but he didnt respond. I've fixed the references and added fair use rationales for them all. If you don't mind, I was wondering if you could look over the article one last time, before I re-submit it and let me know if there's anything you think should be fixed or anything. Thank you OmegaWikipedia 16:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use discussion

Hi, I would appreciate your comments on a current discussion of fair use images at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Keira_Knightley and Talk:Keira_Knightley#Two_pictures. Thanks Arniep 14:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Question

I was just wondering. Since you added a sample to complete Cool (song)'s nomination issues, would it be possible if you could do the same for Hollaback Girl? That is, adding a sample? I mean, you honestly don't have to if you don't choose to. I am only asking as I am useless and clueless about OGG. Thanks very much. --Winnermario 23:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I would've done it gladly, but I was away until the first week in December, so I guess it's a moot point now as someone else has added a sample. Rossrs 02:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The A Star Is Born films

Rossrs, I congratulate you on being bold by going ahead and creating three separate pages for the three films. I firmly believe that every film should have their own wiki article including remakes, so well done. However, I'm going to make one tiny change. According to the naming conventions for films, all every word in the film's title is to be capitalised except, conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for, yet, so), prepositions (to, over, through) or articles (an, a, the, that, any, some, one, these, those). Therefore, since the word "is" isn't a conjunction, preposition or an article, the word is to be in capitals. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Films by year

I notice you created Category:Films by year, which contains subcategories whose titles begin with a year. If you have time, could you please go through and make sure the subcats are sorted in their respective year parent categories using sortkeys as outlined at Wikipedia:Categorization#Year categories? (Don't forget to start the sortkey with a capital letter.) If you've done this already, thanks and sorry for bugging you about this. I plan to go through a ton of such pages early next year; it would be nice if some of the work were already done... - dcljr (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)