User talk:Henry Flower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For rants from yesteryear, see Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, I'll reply to everything on this page.

[edit] Shostakovich, piping, Grove

It was me who edited the Dmitri Shostakovich article. (Not logged in, however.) As I was reading the article I came across the word Grove not knowing what on earth it referred to. Because I didn't know what Grove is, and many others who read the article probably don't, I decided to remove the piping. Removing the piping and showing the full title of the book provided a good explanation on what Grove is and therefore it's not essential for the reader to check out the article on Grove to know what it is.

I don't think Grove is something evenrybody who's going to read the Shostakovich article knows about, and there'd be an easy way to explain what it is. Just saying "Grove" would probably suffice in some Journal of Musicology, but Wikipedia isn't that. And besides, it's good style to refer to a book/song/composer/anything by its full name when mentioned for the first time in an article.

So: May I remove the piping or are there reasons not to?

Oh well, even if the full title is gone, I still got the italics in. ;)--Wormsie 19:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd really rather you didn't. Mainly because it would give people the idea that the work is a dictionary (it's not- it's an encyclopedia- but explaining exactly what it is would be well beyond the scope of the DS article). It's also a lot of words to no particular purpose, while anyone who needs/wants to see the full title can mouseover. It's more important that Fay wrote it than that she wrote it in Grove, so if you really hate the piping we could always relegate naming Grove to the footnote. Henry^Flower 19:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points, I'll leave it as it is.--62.220.230.157 07:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Needed

I was just wondering if you would be able to glance over Richard III (1955 film), since you were a major contriubutor to the purely awesome article Casablanca (film) a few years ago. It's just some problems with the text that I'm having, so, if you could give me some pointers as to what is wrong with it stylistically. It's just that, it's up for FA, and someone's objecting because the text is too problematic, and he reccomended that I seek advice from someone with a knowledge of such things. Thanks, ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 04:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll do a bit more if I have the time. ;) Henry^Flower 07:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tibet

Henry, I didn't put the bit about the PRC rule of Tibet there and that was a previous edit before mine - if anything, I'm in the pro-Tibet lobby (having been there a few years back). My edit was simply to try to provide a balanced view between the unfortunate status quo (Chinese rule and international governmental recognition - which was there before) and the views of people around the world on Tibet that the Chinese presence should not be (not in article). I'll leave the page alone as you request, however. Apologies if any inconvenience caused.

Unfortunately, it's always going to be a contentious page to edit and the pro- and anti- lobbies are always going to want it their way.

All the very best to you,

Ian (Beefy_SAFC)

I certainly don't want you to leave the page alone- I just want to keep the political scuffles in the political scuffles section. Henry^Flower 15:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am very close to leaving the page also and filing a signed petition to the owner of wikipedia. All I want is at this point to keep the POV tag. I am sick and tired of editing and trying to change the "historical Tibet" article. Not even touching the nasty TAR article. But still I have no success! There are at least 2 people that I know for sure that will ALWAYS delete and edit me and any pro-Tibetan point of view. Therefore I think the tag needs to stay. I really don't have time to deal with this site so can we at least keep the POV tags? Me 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is 'no'. POV tags are there to notify the reader that there's ongoing discussion. If there's no discussion, there should be no POV tag. Henry^Flower 16:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding ==Chinese Language==

Just for the record, & to validate myself, so I don't look like I don't know my shit, you are wrong, I have taken linguistics course, hell, I'm majoring in it, I might honour in it, who knows, but the fact of the matter is that language is defined by mutual intelligiblity.

68.148.165.213 08:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Henry^Flower 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casablanca

Please stop removing my notes from this page. There are many other film articles which contain lists of references made to said film in other works of popular culture and beyond. My notes are entirely salient to the fact that Casablanca is such a major and influential cinematic work. The references I have quoted highlight this.

I will reinstate them one more time at a later date. If they are not left alone at that point then I will take steps towards mediation. Martyn Smith 15:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Many other film articles are complete crap. Henry^Flower 15:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I was going to say that that's four people from Aberdeen I've encountered now and they've *all* been pedantic little jobsworths. But I won't, I'll just settle for 'Whatever....' Martyn Smith 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Classy. Henry^Flower 21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for Template:Good article

hi, i hope you can take part in the deletion review debate for the above metadata template that puts a star on the article's mainpage (you voted in the original deletion debate). the vote is here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8 (scroll down for Template:Good Article section). thanks. Zzzzz 00:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angkor Wat

Hello Henry. According to your explanation, "other" temple mountains had more influence over the Angkor Wat than Hindu temples. Well, Angkor Wat is a Hindu temple I guess. I kind of a mixture of Hindu and Buddhist temple to be more precise. According to my knowledge, the very concept of constructing temples in the shape of sacred mountains started in Vedic India; the Himalayas have always played an important role in Vedic religion and its successor, Hinduism. I find it difficult to understand your explanation. Please clarify your point further. --Incman|वार्ता 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if I was too cryptic. My point was that Indian Hindu architecture influenced all temple mountains- it didn't influence Angkor Wat more than it influenced others. It's therefore more economical to mention the influence in the temple mountain section of Architecture of Cambodia rather than to repeat it in every article on each particular temple mountain. Henry^Flower 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please keep your blatant POV to yourself.

It is not "bleedin obvious" whether China's human rights violations are actual or alleged. Most reputed source documents use the qualifier "alleged" or "allegations of"; since the body text of the article uses these same terms, the caption should likewise. Caption has been removed entirely, as it is redundant anyway to the body text. Again, keep your blatant POV off Wikipedia. Thank you. 128.135.60.89 16:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tsunami

Hi, you reverted some very valid edits by an IP on the page above, so I've reverted them - if you think I was wrong, follow the link above and tell me (on my talk page please :) ). Martinp23 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Signs of an approaching tsunami: an alarm may go off"? No, not very valid. Henry^Flower 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"The following have at various times been associated with a tsunami:" - an alarm system has been installed in parts of SE Asia for when a tsunami does strike, so the IP's edit was valid (though yes, it does read as though in jest but simple rewording (A warning alarm may be sounded) may be better. The other contribution by the IP about undersea volcanic eruptions causing tsunamis is perfectly valid, so we really must WP:AGF for the user's other edit, and leave it where it is. Martinp23 22:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand AGF. It does not mean "leave crap edits in place as long as the user meant well". Henry^Flower 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A "volcanic eruption" is not the same as "the collapse of a volcanic eddifice", but you are right - there is a reference to a volcanic eruptions causing tsunamis later in the section (so sorry for that). However, I think that the warning alarm inforamtion does have a place in the article, and the list in which it was included in not specifically natural phenomena. Information about alarms should be included somewhere in the article, and why not in the part which describes what is associated with a tsunami? Thanks Martinp23

Firstly because that list is of specifically natural phenomena. Secondly, because there is already an entire section on Warnings and prevention. Henry^Flower 07:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of people with epilepsy

You commented during a Peer Review of this article. It is now a Featured List Candidate and I'd appreciate your views. Cheers, Colin Harkness°^Talk 16:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage

Should it not be "to die" instead of "died" in your userpage ? (If you're not dead already, that is.) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just borrowed the box, I didn't write it! Henry^Flower 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jintara

Hi. Sorry about the sloppiness on the Jintara Poonlarp article. I could make up an excuse, but what would be the point? Thanks for cleaning up the mess. It's a great article. -Wisekwai 13:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of it was an improvement- nothing to be excused for. :) Henry^Flower 14:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Unblock

Sorry if it was me who hit you with some friendly fire. It wasn't you I was going for. ;) Henry^Flower 22:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha, no problem at all. I figured that since it was an IP block and not username. At least I got it resolved quickly.--NMajdan•talk 03:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eh?

Markalexander100??? -- Миборовский 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Hmib? :) Henry^Flower 20:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes! :p -- Миборовский 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, where's our old crew, man? Mandel and ran? Don't see them around now. -- Миборовский 16:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ran's still around, though we seem to have lost Mandel to Real Life. And Flowerofchivalry. ;) Henry^Flower 19:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Won't miss him. X-D -- Миборовский 21:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Being blocked

Hello. I would like to know what edits i made, way back in february, before i got an account. Back then i was not use to Wikipedia but i can scincerely tell you i did not know i was causing vandalism. Sorry for this.

(when you were Mark Alexander 100). It was on the 12th February. Simply south 12:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

At least i don't think i was causing vandalism. I have changed a lot since then. Simply south 12:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just found the edits and i am feeling a little scared. I KNOW did not make those edits, someone else on this IP did. Strange (and who the heck is Sandi Toksvig?) Simply south 12:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the Sandi Toksvig vandal. That was a very strange business. ;) Henry^Flower 14:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That was not me. Simply south 15:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't- real editors having the same IP as vandals is so common that I'd assume there wasn't a connection, unless there are obvious similarities in interests or behaviour. Henry^Flower 15:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Simply south 15:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You must remember this...

• I took the two items out of the Sequels section because they weren't sequels. I was a bit hesitant about creating a Trivia section, since as we both know, there is nothing trivial about Casablanca, but couldn't come up with a better solution. They still don't belong where they are.
• What's wrong with my explanation of the significance of Brazzaville?
• Why shouldn't Horst Wessel's stronger Nazi link be mentioned?
• If there's no trivia section, I guess there's no place for the sale of the piano, but I thought it was an interesting tidbit. Clarityfiend 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Point taken. I'll try to think of somewhere for 'other versions'.
• Nothing- I was looking at the diff back to front.
• I think that's implicit in 'Nazi Horst-Wessel-Lied'.
• If you can find a place for it, fine, but please not at the price of a Trivia section! Henry^Flower 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IAU

Hey, care to add the category that the template added to all the pages you removed it from? McKay 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Some of the number+name ones could do with category sorting, but I don't care to do that. Henry^Flower 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casablanca categorization as a gambling film

Hi - please don't revert the categorization of the film again until it's been discussed on the talk page for the article. There should be a consensus that this is an inappropriate categorization before it's removed again, and you frankly haven't even made a case for gambling in the film being "peripheral". (It's a signifcant plot point.) An edit war serves no one; a discussion might though. Rray 14:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, there should be a consensus that it's an appropriate categorisation before it's added again. Henry^Flower 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather than carry on two discussions on the subject, let's discuss on the article page. Cheers. Rray 14:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring and uncivil behavior

While technically within the letter of 3RR, reverting 8 times over 3 days against three editors in good standing is disruptive and against its spirit; you should already know that it is also not productive. Accusations of abuse and calling someone a "fool" when a user is being not unreasonable, if perhaps zealous, is also not appropriate. In using admin-revert and protecting your user page, you should ask yourself whether: if, had you been a regular user asking an administrator for it to be protected, that other administrator would have considered those edits vandalism and would have protected the page. Do not continue this behavior. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Using a 3rr warning template on the talk page of someone who is fully aware of the 3rr rule is abuse of the template. Accusing someone who has not broken the rule of breaking the rule is making a fool of yourself. If another user had been involved I would not have given the vandal the benefit of the doubt and would have blocked him. Henry^Flower 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like an innocent mistake. It is not precisely correct, but that is not a reason to call someone a foolish abuser akin to a vandal. In general, a simply incorrect use of a warning template does not entail that its be bad-faith or that the user be a vandal. —Centrx→talk • 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was vandalism until after he repeated his action. Knowingly misusing a template is certainly vandalism. (Incidentally, a fool is generally not a vandal.) Henry^Flower 22:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC urgents box

Hi Henry

I notice that you recently contributed to Cambodia, which is now listed in our new urgents box (being a Scottish regurgitator, you won't mind my regurgitating it on this page, I hope). It updates regularly to try to woo good editors into dropping in. Tony 02:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Angkorian Sites

(reply on my talk page plz) I noticed you were the main editor of the above listed template. I made a page for Muang Tum because it showed as a red link on the template. I actualy have no idea what Muang Tum is (though I will research), so if you know, could you help me out? Also, since most Angkorian sites are Hindu temples, there is a Template:Infobox Mandir to streamline the main facts on the temples. (Mandir is temple in Indian languages)Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually its pretty streamlined, and if the temples were meant for Buddha and converted to hindu temples, then the primary deity=Buddha. For almost all the pages, especially ones with images, it makes it more professional. Are there any design issues you have? Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Point 1 - The ground was fallow before the completion of the first structure

Point 2 - Some King/Regent/Ruler presided over the first "completion"

Point 3 - Idol worship is the norm in Hindu temples, and there are idols and statues of Buddha. Also, the folk Buddhism practiced by the village folk in Asia differs widely from the teachings of the Buddha

Point 4 - Angkor Wat is a Hindu temple, its a model of Mount Meru. It was meant to be a Hindu temple. Bayon may be a different story.

Point 5 - No its not ugly.

Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casablanca

Hail, fellow guardian! I made a few minor changes; analysis isn't what I do, so that's all intact. I also removed Str1977's clumsy plot additions.

I had hoped your sneaky (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) removal of that annoying category could have slipped by under the radar, but no such luck. Otto is starting to tick me off. I applied it to Gilda, which is a gambling film, and he had the nerve to question it, using my own argument for Casablanca no less. There's just no satisfying some people. Clarityfiend 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you on vacation or something? I could use some help with the quotations battle I'm having with User:Colin4C. He insists on adding dialogue that's already in Wikiquotes and so far, nobody else seems interested, so the vote is 1 to 1. Clarityfiend 23:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:1947 - Piano Trio No. 2.ogg

Lupo 10:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Odnadeadhorse.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Odnadeadhorse.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)