User talk:Lee M

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Lee, excellent article about Thames Televison. Kingturtle 01:57 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll add a few more dates and programme references once I've done the research.

Lee, nice article on ATV, but it's best to leave the piped link to the "Central Independent Television" article - "Central" is basically just a disambiguation page. -- Arwel 19:50 16 May 2003 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I was slightly out on some facts but I've now been put straight. That's why it's a collaborative effort, I guess. You'll also notice I've added logos to a couple of the TV company articles, but it can be surprisingly difficult to find good-quality images of them...

Just wanted to say hi, you're doing some nice work.  :-) best, Koyaanis Qatsi

Thanks. Can get a bit addictive though. Sleep? Never heard of it.

I think most of us have experienced that. I'm not sure if that's good or bad. Maybe both--good for the 'pedia, bad for the personal life.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

Lee. Hi. Well done on returning the I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue tapes. Unfortunatly I have to point out that due to the "no single author" nature of wikipedia, personal editorial comments are not appropriate for articles and so your comment on the page about returning the tapes will almost certainly be removed. It's something we all learn. Mintguy 02:05 19 May 2003 (UTC)

Oh, well. I was just blowing my own trumpet a bit. Just for the record, I also returned three rare Kenneth Williams shows as well, but the important thing is that the BBC can now lock them away in an airtight vault forever... :-)

lol. I hope you made copies. Mintguy 17:16 19 May 2003 (UTC)

Actually what the BBC do with returned shows is make digital copies for their own use and then give the original back to the owners. So I got my tapes back, and all I have to do now is find something to play them on!!!

This has reminded me of a good article I was going to create but forgot about "Lost episodes". Although perhaps that title might make some people think it's about the after effects of heavy drinking. Anyway it sound like you're an expert on the subject. Mintguy 21:21 19 May 2003 (UTC)

There's an article at wiping which sort of covers this. But it needs a lot of work (and a title change IMHO). Mintguy 17:06 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The reason for the "as of" pages can be found on Talk:As of 2003. -- Someone else 06:05 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.

Pleased to be of service<G> - - Someone else 21:50 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I see you edited 1895 in literature and others. You might want to consider if it is worthwhile as the person who did 99% of all the work on the years in literature pages from the year 1800 in literature through to 2003 in literature was a banned user by the name of User:Black Widow and who also admitted to being the same person who logged in under 64.228.30.136 or variations on that IP number. According to Wikipedia Administrator User:Jtdirl, this IP and Black Widow are part of a sinister plot to destroy Wikipedia. Please see User:Joe Canuck in this regard because in accordance with the rules of the Wikipedia:Administrators, all edits by this user will be reverted and as such there will be virtually nothing on more than 200 years in literature. Note too, you are ordered not to reinstate any edits made by this user. Good luck, and thanks for participating at our Wikipedia community. ChuckM 00:49 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. Couple of points: (1) If the "years in literature" pages are meant as disinformation, would it not be possible to have someone go through them and correct any inaccuracies rather than deleting them? (2) I will of course make every effort to comply with the rules, but when you're editing a page you don't always pay much attention to who posted it in the first place.

Thank you for adding Feetlebaum to the List of fictional horses. You've solved two nagging problems for me: first, that I wanted to add Feetlebaum myself but couldn't; second, the reason that I couldn't, that until today I didn't have a clue how Feetlebaum's name was spelt. —Paul A 01:40 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Glad to help. BTW, since you happened to remind me of that article, I also happened to think of a few more horses in song, like "A Horse with No Name". Damn, can't get the stupid thing out of my head now. Naa, naa, naa-na-na-na...

UPDATE: I've since learned that it's actually Fietlebaum... Lee M

Lee, when you want to move a page from one title to another, such as you did with The Adventures of Robin Hood to The Adventures of Robin Hood (movie), you don't have to copy-and-paste. You can just use the "Move this page" link. This also keeps the edit history and the talk page intact. CGS 10:33 26 Jul 2003 (UTC).

Yeah, I got the changeover a bit ass-backwards there. I'll try and do it properly if there's a next time.

Hi. I got on your track via Feral children in mythology and fiction (quite excellent) -- but I'm a little concerned with your uses of likely copyrighted images -- Pyrénée, , etc. I like the fact that these are quite small, though. But just to be clear -- anything photos on here must be released to the WP under the GNU FDL, and therefore we editors must have permission to do so from their tm/copyright holders. This is sorta fuzzy though -- I dont want to make a stink. Thanks. -戴&#30505sv 20:45, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

My feeling is that individual images of book or CD covers, comic panels etc. constitute fair dealing and there shouldn't be any objections. Even so, if there's a problem I will (with great reluctance) remove them.

I added a comic book cover to the Elfquest article but was careful to include their standard copyright disclaimer.

Lee M 01:42, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Since this is a pretty open discussion, and Im curious about the answer, Im going to continue this on the WP:Pump -- maybe there'd be a more concise answer there. -Regards 戴&#30505sv 01:58, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC) PS: On second thought, forget that -- read Wikipedia:Copyrights (using copyrighted material) -- It just calls for a bit more documentation on the process -- its still fuzzy -- but Id suggest raising the issue on VP or on the en:wiki mailing list at some point. Thanks 戴&#30505sv 02:08, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Lee, Re the Alf Garnett series. I checked with the BBC when doing the page on the series. Apparently its correct name is 'til Death Us do Part, written as that (ie., 'til). However technical problems meant they had to drop the ' as it looked like a speck of dirt on the screen. They spent ages screaming at the media "no, it isn't TILL its TIL" but gave up and now some texts use 'til, others til and many Til. The graphics package eventually evolved to use the double ll and in the end even the people associated with the series became confused as to just what the correct name of the series is, but the strictly correct title of the series is til Death Us Do Part, from the marriage vow 'til death do us part. I used the strictly correct name as that was the original name used for the show and and that is how because of that the article is on wiki as. FearÉIREANN 00:56, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for the clarification. Of course, nowadays "till" is probably a commoner usage than "'til" even if it isn't strictly correct. Lee M 01:51, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

UPDATE: as I noted in the article, the 2004 DVD is spelt Till Death Us do Part, so the misspelling is widespread. Lee M 03:50, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Page "Faces (band)" moved to "The Faces". Angela 01:46, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks - Lee M 18:21, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Since your tube station articles don't actually contain any information, what is the point of them? Why not put them together and work them into an article that says something interesting? Adam 14:31, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The articles on the London Underground lines have links to every individual station, most of which don't yet have articles. All I'm doing is adding articles about stations I happen to know a bit about, on the basis that every link should have an accompanying article. It's true that these articles don't say much, but in many cases there isn't much that needs to be said except where the stations are in relation to places of interest (e.g. South Kensington tube station), and what lines they're on. Lee M 14:40, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In that case there shouldn't be a link for each separate station, there should be a list of stations on each line at the main article. Anyone who actually has something interesting to say about a particular station can then create a new page for it. Adam

I guess the real questions here are 1) how deep should links go? See for instance the article on author C. J. Cherryh, which has a link to every book she's written, and none of the links has an article yet. And she's written dozens. 2) What's the smallest amount of information an article can contain and still be useful? Obviously we differ on that point! Lee M 02:36, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

UPDATE: Most of the novel links on the Cherryh page have now been removed.