User talk:Rubywine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Rubywine! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 27 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Peter-John Vettese - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Carrie Grant - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Newfrontiers

Hi Rubywine. I've noted your recent reversions on the Newfrontiers page and wouldn't disagree with either. I'm only an occasional Wikipedia contributor but I do keep a close eye on that page. I think your comment on the last reversion is overstating the case but agree this is a live issue. It will be interesting to see if more anonymous edits occur in the near future. I'm not sure how the "protection" policy works but will try to find time to read up on it. Best regards, EutychusFr (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me on my talk page. The Newfrontiers page has recently seen some overhauling by Yworo which I queried on the latter's talk page. From the discussion it emerges that apparently, links to forums are not on. I have let matters rest there for now and am keeping my eye open for admissible reliable sources to add to the page as appropriate. EutychusFr (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Introduction2003albumcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Introduction2003albumcover.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion below is copied from Sfan00 IMG (talk)

Are you trying to annoy people deliberately ? This is a waste of my time. The source is not incomplete. I specified the exact web page on which I found the image, shortly before uploading it nearly five years ago. It is obvious that the domain is no longer active. If you must reply, then reply here. Rubywine 13:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the full URL of the page on which you found the image, It's a very simple request :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you able to read? I supplied the full URL at the time. It's on the image page. Rubywine 13:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A Full URL is one that ends up in a path+ filename. e.g http://somewebsite.com/index.htm Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong, but I am required to assume that you are misinformed and acting in good faith. A URL is valid if it is a valid URI reference. [http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/urls.html] Stop mistagging images on this invalid ground. If your misinformation is based on a Wikipedia source then identify it, because it requires correction. I am also repeating the advice which you have been given on many previous occasions: Don't template the regulars. Rubywine (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A History of Horror

> Where is the policy on removal of non-parent categories?

The guideline is implicit in the definition of the category system. See Wikipedia:Categorization. To summarize, the categories I deleted are tangentially related to the article but they don't actually include it. The category system is a hierarchy of subsets, not a network of general associations. Each category contains only articles about a specific topic or set of things. It doesn't contain articles about other subjects, even if they're related. Here are some relevant quotes:

• WP:CAT#The category system
  • the system approximates a directed acyclic graph
  • If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second, then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second.
• WP:CAT#Categorizing pages
  • Which pages a given category is supposed to contain is generally clear from the name of the category.
• WP:CAT#Subcategorization
  • When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also. Category chains formed by parent-child relationships should never form closed loops. If two categories are closely related but are not in a subset relation, then links between them can be included in the text of the category pages.

Thanks for your reply. I understand the definition. I was overdoing it with the categories and I can see the reasoning for your deletion of most of them. What I don't understand is your deletion of Cinema of the United States and Cinema of the United Kingdom. I don't think the relationship between the article and either of these two categories is tangential. In each case I think the article is both appropriate for inclusion and at the right level of specificity. Cinema of the United States includes the first and third episodes of A History of Horror, and Cinema of the United Kingdom includes the second episode. Also, each of these categories contains other articles with far weaker grounds for inclusion, for example, Gongman, Mark Finch, Bankable star and Fictitious Internet resource. Any chance that you could reconsider? Rubywine (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

> Cinema of the United States and Cinema of the United Kingdom

Okay, that's fine. I restored UK Cinema and replaced US Cinema with Hollywood history, which is a child of US Cinema. I also added Hammer Film Productions, since that's also a topic category. —Coder Dan (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. :) Rubywine (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dealing with image problems

A conversation which took place at User_talk:FleetCommand#Dealing with image problems

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)