text:
Category talk:Year of death missing

Rename?
Other possible names for the category would be: -- User:Docu
 * Category:Year of death unknown
 * Category:YOD missing (short, with a TLA)
 * Category:YOD unknown
 * Category:Died unknown
 * Category:Death unknown
 * Category:unknown deaths (similar to Category:2005 deaths etc.)

Year of birth missing
I don't have any preference on this category's title, but whatever it turns out to be, it should have a sister category, e.g., Category:Year of birth missing, for those articles with (death dates and) no birth dates. Also, please update the instructions on People by year once these categories are established. --Quuxplusone 17:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It currently doesn't exist, but you already updated the instructions at People by year (?).

 * Before we create it, we have to decide how we want articles to be categorized, for e.g.:
 * someone born c. 1425 or 1431-1432 and died after 1488:
 * Category:Year of birth missing and Category:Year of death missing
 * Category:15th century births and Category:15th century deaths
 * Category:15th century births and Category:15th century deaths
 * Category:1430s births and Category:Year of death missing
 * Category:1425 births and Category:1489 deaths
 * and for someone who fl. 1430-1440:
 * Category:Year of birth missing and Category:Year of death missing
 * Category:Year of birth missing and Category:15th century deaths
 * Category:15th century births and Category:15th century deaths
 * etc.

 * Besides, I haven't much of a preference for the category title either.
 * -- User:Docu

I've just created Category:Year of birth missing by copying from "Category:Year of death missing" and changing the words. It looks like the German Wikipedia's style is just to use as many relevant cats as possible, all the time; I think that's reasonable. For your examples, I'd personally use
 * Category:Year of birth missing and Category:Year of death missing and Category:15th century births.

I don't know what "fl." means, so I can't comment on that one. --Quuxplusone 00:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Juan Ponce de León is in both Category:1460 births and Category:Year of birth missing. I don't think it's of much use to add it to Category:Year of birth missing. Besides, many of the early biographies won't have a year of birth, so they will also end up in Category:Year of birth missing. Personally I'd think the year of death category or the century category is sufficient.
 * fl = flourished (some of the imported biographies use that).
 * -- User:Docu

 * "Many of the early biographies won't have a year of birth, so they will also end up in Category:Year of birth missing." See, I find that advantageous. I enjoy articles about lesser-known historical figures, and it seems like this category might collect a lot of them. Whether we want to follow de.wikipedia's lead in "overcategorizing" biographies with respect to YOB and YOD is debatable, I agree. Emphasis: The point isn't to put every bio in just one category. It's to create interesting, logical, and/or useful categories (IMO this cat satisfies all three: interesting as mentioned above, logical by symmetry with "YOD missing", and useful because editors might add the missing information to some articles). I agree "c. 1460" might not belong in "YOB missing", but nobody's moved it out of the category yet, so... :) --Quuxplusone 06:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article sorting
Regarding "Articles are generally sorted by article title." To maintain consistency with the other birth / death categories and Category:Living people, shouldn't this be sorted by family name? Especially seeing as most of the articles are already sorted that way in this category. Ziggurat 21:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Ooh. Definitely by surname, yes. (Or in general by however the article appears in other categories.) I didn't even notice that sentence was on the category description page; apparently it's been there for a while. I'll change it now. --Quuxplusone 23:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Cool, I thought that was a little odd. I'll get to work on moving unpiped articles then... Ziggurat 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As it's a temporary category, there doesn't seem to be much a point of sorting them. Besides, the bookmarklet adds them that way .. -- User:Docu

 * That would be a problem with the bookmarklet, then. I don't use bookmarklets, or know anything about them; otherwise, I'd try to fix the bookmarklet myself. (I may try anyway, by comparison with the C:YOBM bookmarklet, if one exists.) And is there really a point to any of this? :) Plenty of pages have been in this "temporary" category since its creation, and I expect many of them will be there forever (since a lot of historical figures' death dates simply aren't known by anyone). I think sorting this category the same way as the other categories makes more sense than special-casing it. --Quuxplusone 02:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * This category and a few related ones never had been sorted (YOD missing, possibly living people), so there isn't much a point in going doing it for this one. -- User:Docu

 * Marking this topic resolved, and there has long since been consensus to sort by family name, and the DEFAULTSORT magicword exists to do this. Important usage note: DEFAULTSORT must go "before" categories, and "after" wikiproject banner and similar templates, on talk pages, or it will NOT work correctly (bug confirmed to exist as of 26 May 2007; may be resolved in future by the MediaWiki software developers.) —  SMcCandlish  [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on splitting these categories
See Category talk:Year of birth missing. --Quuxplusone 06:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Such a split has been proposed many times in various categories of this sort and at WP:CFD, yet never reached anything close to a consensus to do so. The only way it would ever be likely to do so would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography as a well-outlined, comprehensive proposal, followed by a mass rename-CfD of all of the affected categories at once. Marking this topic resolved, because it has no responses and is certainly not going to result in such a rename. —  SMcCandlish  [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Goes in articles not talk pages
Per consensus at WP:CFD this category is considered "defining", and unlike most related categories goes in the actual article itself (when it applies; if the person is not known to be deceased it should not be used at all). —  SMcCandlish  [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Useless
A perfectly useless "category", which is simply an inflated locution for a list. Only list-makers can be concerned with such a list: the Wikipedia reader is not served. Why is this? Inspecting a category should offer depth and context to an article. Otherwise its use is simply to keep Wikipedians from crayoning on the walls. --Wetman 22:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Inspecting a category should offer depth and context to an article.". Categories are for the logical grouping together of connected articles, to aid navigation, for maintenance, and for many other things. True, we should aim to serve the reader first and foremost but you do your argument a great disservice by insulting people who maintain or use categories like these. --kingboyk (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Year of death missing


text:
Category:Geography of Oceania

 * Geography of Oceania.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Category:Geography of Oceania


text: Portal:Poland/Did you know

title: Portal:Poland/Did you know


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iman Ng (0th nomination)

Iman Ng
Possibly a bogus article, posted by an anonymous contributor with a serious history of disruptive postings. olivier 12:19, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is the anonymous contributor notified through the IP address talk page? — Instantnood 19:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia is Evil

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Evil
Apart from the title being an oxymoron, I hardly think this is encyclopaedic. Deb 12:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete before people find out about our fiendish plot. Capitalistroadster 12:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for deletion.
 * Delete, POV title. Opinion masked as facts, not an article but an essay/rant/column. Any criticism can be put in existing articles on the issue. Mgm|(talk) 13:19, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Craigy [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] (talk) 13:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * No reason listed for deletion.
 * Delete for reasons already stated. What about the Wikipedia Sucks article that it is linked to? 23skidoo 14:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No specific reason listed for deletion.
 * Wikipedia Sucks seems to be redirected to "Why wikipedia isn't so great". Mgm|(talk) 14:41, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. heh. Are you sure this can't be speedied? hehe."A unique criticism, however, is that the system actually exhumes evil based on its design." -- Phroziac (talk) 14:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No reason listed for deletion.
 * Yo mama's listed for deletion, Nevre.
 * It's not verifiable -- Phroziac (talk) 13:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We need to keep this fact quiet... -- Joolz 14:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for deletion.
 * Please do not attempt to discredit my vote, the admin which counts the vote at the end of this proccess can determine if any invalid votes have been made. I never claimed that my comment was the reason I think this article should be deleted. It was merely a comment. I believe that this article should be deleted because I concur with the reasons given by the nominee. I think it would be quite unneccessary if everyone had to repeat the same reasons for every vote, or even if they had to put "I concur" after each vote because that's what voting delete without any further reasons generally means. -- Joolz 14:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur.
 * Transwiki to . Alphax τεχ 15:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to . --Ian Pitchford 16:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not funny. ConeyCyclone 17:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for deletion. It was not intended as a humor article, and the humor value of an article to any one party does not determine its informational value.
 * Delete and put on WP:BJAODN. King of ♥  ♦  ♣ ♠ 18:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No reason listed for deletion.
 * Redirect to Why Wikipedia is not so great, so that those who refuse to see why Wikipedia is so great will not go re-create this non-funny article. --Idont Havaname 19:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for deletion. It was not intended as a humor article, and the humor value of an article to any one party does not determine its informational value.
 * Keep Jinkleberries 19:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No reason listed for keeping.
 * Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 21:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, lest the Cabal make you dissappear Project2501a 20:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for deletion.
 * Delete. Utterly stupid. Now, lest that be labelled as "Not a valid reason for deletion", I'll add unencyclopedic as well. And give contributor the old bar of soap in the sock routine. -R. fiend 05:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "Unencyclopedic" is only a proposed guideline and it is not current Wikipedia policy.
 * Jesus H. Christ, I'm sick of hearing shit like this. Unencyclopedic material ipso facto does not belong in an encyclopedia. Someone get me my sock and soap. -R. fiend 15:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Then don't listen.
 * Comment: The "technically no valid votes" person has a section on his user page that makes light of vandalism. He is User:Nevreware, the creator of the Wikipedia is Evil article. --Idont Havaname 06:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Making light of vandalism was not my intent. Your interpretation of my user page is your personal view.
 * Delete. From Deletion policy, and by extension, WP:NOT: original research, propaganda or advocacy, critical reviews, and personal essays. And throw in a not encyclopedic in for good measure. And User:Nevreware, I don't believe there is any policy requiring reasons to be given with votes; if there is, I'd appreciate if you could point it out.— Knowledge Seeker দ 06:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * From the WP:NOT page: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. That is, majority opinion does not necessarily rule in Wikipedia. Various votes are regularly conducted, but their numerical results are usually only one of several means of making a decision. The discussions that accompany the voting processes are crucial means of reaching consensus. For example, a very important Wikipedia process is reaching consensus on what articles are not encyclopedic and should be deleted from Wikipedia entirely. The discussion by which that consensus is reached occurs in the context of a "vote" on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page. That page is slightly misnamed since the discussion is more important than the actual voting."
 * Userfy to subpage of User:Nevreware. Not encyclopedic, POV title, original research etc.
 * "Unencyclopedic" is only a proposed guideline and it is not current Wikipedia policy. The title can be altered and more sources added.
 * Delete - advocacy - Skysmith 09:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Technically all entries on Wikipedia advocate one or more views of how something should be properly defined.
 * Delete From Wikipedia is not a soapbox: " Personal essays that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta."   Also, FYI, User:Nevreware, your wikilawyering replies to each and every vote on this page could be considered a breach of etiquette.  Soundguy99 12:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So could calling someone stupid and idiotic, their ideas shit, and threatening to assult them. ;-) But thank you for your vote, and your comments which add actual substance to this page.

 * Delete and move to meta: it's a piece of opinion, which includes a lot of original research. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 13:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Inherently POV; unencyclopedic; personal essay; duplicates Criticism of Wikipedia. Incidentally, being unencyclopedic is a perfectly valid criterion for deletion. The fact that Unencyclopedic redirects to Importance is not actually an issue. The proposed policy there is about notability. Obviously "this does not belong in an encyclopedia" is a valid criterion for removing the content from our encyclopedia. Have it on Meta or in a user sub-page if you must, but don't litter the article namespace with self-referential, unencyclopedic rubbish. smoddy 13:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Opinion piece. -- Preacher King of Mao 14:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone here seems to be labouring under the delusion that you have to have a valid reason for your vote. More to the point that he/she is the judge of what is a valid reason. In fact there is no need for anyone to provide a reason for their vote, any more than you have to have a 'valid' reason for how you vote in an election. If there was, democracy would be in a lot of trouble. (No vote by the way) DJ Clayworth 14:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * If people voted for things arbitrarily, democracy would be in a lot of trouble. But considering we only get two choices, isn't it already? ;-)
 * Delete Unless the article is revised to explain instead of argue. If it were re-written to document the arguments against Wikipedia instead of actually making the arguments, it might be worth keeping. Of course, I'd also want to see what sources there are for these arguments (i.e. any magazine articles, webpages or books). I am guessing that it's not a wide-spread movement (perhaps only a movement of one person) and thus lacks significance.... --Habap 17:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for an article. Delete and beat up those responsible. — Phil Welch 17:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Is a recommendation of violence as bad as a threat of it? (chuckling) --Habap 17:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a litterbox, with a permanent deletion notice (just for show). It would be such a great place to edit when having hissy fits.   If it can't be a litterbox, rats.  The other thing, then.   --Mothperson 18:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per so-called "not valid" reasons as stated above. =D - Mailer Diablo 00:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- original research... no, wait, that doesn't seem quite right... BJAODN... no, it isn't particularly funny... Eh, screw it. Delete just because I think the author is stupid. Haikupoet 02:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not even funny. Rhobite 05:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete on grounds of being self-referential nonsense. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If anyone has a legitimate reason for deleting, keeping, or redirecting, I encourage you to list it here. However, simply stating "delete" is not a valid reason for deletion. If the veracity, format, or POV of the article is in question, it should be discussed in the Talk section. So far, few techincally valid votes have been posted as far as I can see, for reasons listed below. []
 * And you are...? Haikupoet 02:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's self-referential, it's original research, and it's mostly nonsense. How's that for a reason? Rhobite 16:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hard to critique an article that isn't up anymore.
 * I wasn't aware one needed a reason. Wikipedia is still a democracy, isn't it? Of course you'd need a good reason to vote Conservative nowadays, but this article is silly, full stop. Craigy [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] (talk) 16:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy, but you don't need to supply the reasoning behind your vote, especially if your reasons are already listed. --Habap 14:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete: this is a personal essay/rant, not an encyclopedia article. -- The Anome 16:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Un focused 16:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV by definition. carmeld1 22:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV by defition, original research, unverifiable. Jayjg (talk)  15:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV/original research, however some of those criticisms are commonly made of the Wikipedia, so it may be worth digging up some sources and putting the more notable points in something like a Common criticisms page or something. I don't know what the hell the creator was thinking, he could've actually defended some of that if he hadn't gone overboard on calling the encyclopedia evil and putting those images on, but as it stands it's blatantly just a personal attack on the place. Sockatume 16:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not E2. —Ashley Y 03:12, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * Merge reasonable arguments into Why Wikipedia is not so great, jettison rest. —Ghakko 04:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nevreware (talk • contribs) has been harassing voters, dismissing votes that do not provide reasons (see for evidence). Alphax τεχ 05:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A unique criticism, however, is that the system actually exhumes evil based on its design. This view is explored in depth in this article.
 * Delete, Its style exposes its lack of real potential. This article is typified by sentences like these:
 * The article establishes the parameter for the topic as, an in depth exploration of the unique criticism that, Wikipedia exhumes evil by design. It couldn't be made more clear to what pseudo-intellectual depths the article must go in order to investigate the issue under a pretense of neutrality.  The exploration of this view consists chiefly of a lazy wave of the hand in the general direction of a group of people, ominously called "internet fundamentalists " - well, let's just say it (and he does) - "Christians" - well, alright (which he doesn't say), "Me".  This is how far an in depth exploration of the topic will take us at first thrust.  I shudder to think how much farther in that direction things might go with a little more work.

 * This is followed by a section entitled Man-Based Thought in Information, the relevance of which is not obvious, unless the point is to grant access to someone's (presumably not the author's) struggles with epistemological issues in a world without God. Finally, we are treated to an arm-chair analysis of what we might have learned from reading all this.

 * My first inclination was to try to improve the essay - because I can sympathize with its theme. Any religious person who is never frustrated by the official and coercive agnosticism, enforced through Wikipedia's editing policies, is not religious in any sense that I can identify with.  But the only way to contribute to this topic would be to join with the author in carving out article space for a forum controversy, for the sake of further elucidating his point of view.  I recommend to the author that he should create a blog, link to it from userspace, and direct people to it who might be interested in his explanation of why Christians will find it difficult to participate in Wikipedia, and why he thinks this is not an accident.  This would free him from the pretense of agnosticism, and enable him to write much more credibly about the problem.  However, the best way to improve this article is to delete it from Wikipedia. Some mention of the problem alluded to might make a good addition to Why Wikipedia is not so great, but there are only themes, no actual content, here. Mkmcconn (Talk)  05:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Original research.

 * "If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."

 * "The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean that material is bad – Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia."

 * --Edcolins 10:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Or move to the "Wikipedia:" space if decided to keep. roozbeh 02:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Either transwiki to meta or move page to a user subpage of whoever started that article. Or move to BJAODN. - 68.23.97.244 23:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
File:Ruts - Grin And Bear It album cover.jpg

Summary
The Ruts - Grin & Bear It. Original UK LP album cover (Cover painting by Oliver Howard)

Licensing
Original UK release album cover - album covers are fair use. Picture scanned by me Ian Dunster from original UK LP album.


text: Talk:Adelaide Writers' Week

title: Talk:Adelaide Writers' Week


text:
Herbert Wise

Herbert Wise (31 August 1924 – 5 August 2015) was an Austrian-born film and television producer and director.

He was born as Herbert Weisz in Vienna, Austria, and began his career as a director at Shrewsbury Repertory Company in 1950. He was at Hull Rep and then as Director of Productions at Dundee Rep (1952–55). He directed So what about Love in the West End at the Criterion Theatre in a 1970 production with Sheila Hancock in the lead.

Wise began his television career in 1956 and directed adaptations of I, Claudius (1976) and Alan Ayckbourn's play cycle The Norman Conquests (1977), the BBC Television Shakespeare production of Julius Caesar (1979), Tales of the Unexpected, The 10th Kingdom, The Woman in Black (1989), and episodes of Cadfael and Inspector Morse. He also directed several episodes of the Thames Television series Rumpole of the Bailey. He directed several made-for-TV films, including Skokie (1981) and Breaking the Code (1996), the latter adapted from the Hugh Whitemore play about Alan Turing.

Wise directed two theatrically released films: an entry in the Edgar Wallace Mysteries second feature series titled To Have and to Hold (1963), and the film version of the 1970–1971 television sit-com The Lovers titled The Lovers! (1973).

He was married twice, firstly to the actress Moira Redmond (1963–1972) and, after he and Redmond divorced, to actress Fiona Walker in 1988. Wise and Fiona Walker had two children; Susannah Wise and Charlie Walker-Wise.

title: Herbert Wise


text:
Wikipedia:Wikifun/Round 9/Answers/Question 15

I'll take a completely unsubstantiated stab at Bill Gates. Can use KBE but not Sir becuase he's not a subject of the British Empire. Alphax τεχ 12:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please note, this round requires an explaination of your logic behind your conclusion. I can not accept your answer. -- AllyUnion (talk) 17:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I can only assume that diamonds is referring to Carbon (API), and the working and rent both refer to Steve Jobs - both of which are related to Apple Computers. Bill Gates is a computer magnate. I can't remember if he used to work for Apple, but it was claimed that he plagirised the concept of Windows from them. Alphax τεχ 09:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain for "A person in this category was knighted for his work." -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm guessing that like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates is the chairman/director/overlord of his company, but isn't really the top guy (or is he?)... Alphax τεχ 08:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want a bigger clarification, what do diamonds, working, and rent have in common? If you found that out, you'd find the person who was knighted for his work in this category.  -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's William Henry Gates III, KBE, aka Bill Gates? -Hmib 06:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please note, this round requires an explaination of your logic behind your conclusion. I can not accept your answer. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

my stab at it
They all have something to do with gay rights (Diamonds "were also a symbol of gay community in the 1950s", Rent (the musical, about AIDS and gay people))... someone who was recently gay who was Knighted was Sir Elton John. --kizzle 19:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, but I guess you can't be knighted for being gay. nevermind :( --kizzle 19:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * They have nothing to do with Gay Rights. This is fun... try searching again.  -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Lennon
John Lennon from The Beatles ("Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "working like a dog" in "A Hard Day's Night"...) sent back the title of MBE to the queen and thus probably could never use the title Sir although he has been knighted. (As he died meanwhile, he can't use it anymore anyway.) — MFH: Talk 5 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

PS: George Harrison (matching the same Beatles keywords) also can't use his title of MBE anymore since he's also dead. But Lennon's sending back of the title seems more remarkably to me. — MFH: Talk 5 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)

 * You've only used two, out of the three keywords. --AllyUnion (talk) 6 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)

 * OK, since you insist: in "When I'm Sixty-Four" (McCartney/Lennon):
 * (...) Every summer we can rent a cottage,
 * In the Isle of Wight, if it's not too dear (...)
 * or in : "You Never Give Me Your Money" (Lennon/McCartney):
 * (...) Out of college money spent
 * See no future, pay no rent (...)
 * — MFH: Talk 7 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)

 * P.S.: on this page you have even more songs for each one of the keywords... ("rent" also in "Lady Madonna", "working" also in "Eleanor Rigby" and in "Paperback Writer", "diamond" also in "Can't Buy Me Love")  — MFH: Talk 7 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)
 * on this page even more ("diamonds" also in IF YOU'VE GOT TROUBLE, I FEEL FINE, "rent" again in I'M LOOKING THROUGH YOU, "working" in TAXMAN) - see also w:Category:The Beatles songs
 * As a side note (to kizzle ;), there was also homosexuality issue in between Lennon and Beatles' manager Brian Epstein...

 * The three have a more common relationship than you think. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Screetchy cello's guess
My guess is Alan_Greenspan, who was knighted in 2002. Working, rent and diamonds all have to do with money and economics, and Alan Greenspan is, to quote the article, "considered by many to be the leading authority and key participant concerning American domestic economic and monetary policy." He is an American citizen and thus cannot use the honorific "Sir" in front of his name, as the article on the British_honours_system states.

I found him by finding the article on the British_honours_system (the knighthood), which mentions several foreigners who have been knighted. I followed the link on that to Bill Gates's article, which states he was knighted into the Order of the British Empire. That article has a slightly different list of people, including old Al here.

--Screetchy cello July 9, 2005 12:03 (UTC)

 * The former can use the proper title honorific while the latter may not. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Musical theatre
"Working", "Rent" and "Diamonds" are all the names of musicals -- see List of Musicals: A to L and List of musicals: M to Z. Now, a quick browse on recent British knightings at List of honorary British Knights, with an eye towards someone who might be involved with musicals, leads me to the entry for André Previn. Following that link, I find that Previn is indeed a composer of musicals. And it states on his page: He is also an honorary Knight of the British Empire; while he is not entitled to the form "Sir André Previn" as he is not a British citizen, he is entitled to append the letters KBE to his name. - Bjimba 16:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are rather close. But the former person may use the honorific title, while the latter may not.  Please note, there are two people that are being asked for in the question. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You're asking for two people? Then the only clue given for person number two is that he or she is not allowed to use the honorific title?  This then amounts to a "guess which one I'm thinking of" contest.  Could be Previn, could be Bill Gates, could be Steven Speilberg, could be Terry Wogan... Bjimba 13:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Recent" for the latter person means when this round started, specifically, 12 June 2005. But you still haven't correctly named the former person anyway. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

My Guess
Sir Elton John, didnt he work on those musicals?? What if its both Lennon AND Elton John!--Zxcvbnm 14:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sir Elton John was a musician, but he never worked on musicals to my knowledge. --AllyUnion (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Are you joking? Elton John never worked on musicals?  He's only got two currently running in New York (The Lion King and Aida (musical)), one in London (Billy Elliot) and a new one on the way. Bjimba 22:12, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * I stand corrected, however I don't believe Sir Elton John was knighted because he was a composer of music for musicals, but rather knighted as a musician in general. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, out of Elton's work, he only has three musicals under his belt. There is someone else who has a lot more. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * All right, then my guess is Andrew Lloyd Webber for the first and Terry Wogan for the second. Bjimba 13:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Modified guess: Andrew Lloyd Webber for musical theatre, Bill Gates for "can't use title". Bill's a bit more well-known than Terry.  Bjimba 22:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * Taking your whole answer into account:

"Working", "Rent" and "Diamonds" are all the names of musicals -- see List of Musicals: A to L and List of musicals: M to Z. Now, a quick browse on recent British knightings at List of honorary British Knights, with an eye towards someone who might be involved with musicals, leads me to the entry for André Previn. Following that link, I find that Previn is indeed a composer of musicals. And it states on his page: He is also an honorary Knight of the British Empire; while he is not entitled to the form "Sir André Previn" as he is not a British citizen, he is entitled to append the letters KBE to his name. -- Bjimba 16:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * You are correct! --AllyUnion (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

bill gates


text:
User:Martin Bravenboer

I'm a Ph.D. student at the Department of Information and Computing Sciences of the Utrecht University in the Netherlands. I'm doing research in the area of generative programming. In particular, I'm contributing to Statego/XT, which is the distribution of the Stratego transformation language and a collection of program transformation tools. For more information regarding my work, please visit my website.

I'm not the Martin Bravenboer responsible for the NESM Nostalgie Expresse.

title: User:Martin Bravenboer


text:
Uranium oxide

Uranium oxide is an oxide of the element uranium.

The metal uranium forms several oxides:
 * Uranium dioxide or uranium(IV) oxide (UO2, the mineral uraninite or pitchblende)
 * Diuranium pentoxide or uranium(V) oxide (U2O5)
 * Uranium trioxide or uranium(VI) oxide (UO3)
 * Triuranium octoxide (U3O8), the most stable uranium oxide; yellowcake typically contains 70 to 90 percent triuranium octoxide)
 * Uranyl peroxide (UO2O2 or UO4)
 * Amorphous uranium(VI) oxide (Am-U2O7)

Uranium dioxide is oxidized in contact with oxygen to form triuranium octoxide.

 * 3 UO2 + O2 →  U3O8; at 700 °C (970 K)

Preparation 38
During World War II, "Preparation 38" was the codename for uranium oxide used by German scientists.

title: Uranium oxide


text:
Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 1

2003 and earlier discussion
NOTE: I am undertaking significant edits to this page, reorganizing it into an actual history of the Roman Empire and a useful index page for Imperial topics on Wikipedia. The process will be gradual, since my time is limited, so I hope everyone can join in and help out. If anyone has any questions, please see the discussion at the bottom of this talk page.

Thanks all.

--Ddama 04:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I always thought Julius Ceasar was the first emperor?
 * No Julius Ceasar was the first salad.

- Shouldn't the simple list of emperors be in a separate page like United Kingdom/Monarchs although we don't like subpages so maybe as a top level page like Roman Emperors. - Julius Caesar was dictator for life. I was adding the emperor list as stubs, not as a permanent list; but if there's already an accepted practice, go ahead and make a page for it - sounds sensible to me. MichaelTinkler - Sources I have checked say that Julius received the imperium in 46 BC but also that Augustus didn't call himself emperor either. I certainly have no idea on this myself. -- Typically we call everyone up to Nero "The Principate" because the clearest TITLE the emperors used was "Princeps" or "First Citizen." Julius Caesar can be included or not, but Augustus is more usually treated as the first emperor by historians for administrative reasons - J.Caesar never got the kind of grip on the administration of the provinces that Augustus did. MichaelTinkler

- thanks for the 'Roman Emperors' list, rmherman - I don't have it on this harddrive anywhere and didn't want to retype it! MichaelTinkler

Given the common impression of Julius Caesar as emperor, he should at least be mentioned -to refute or affirm in the article and something about the "princeps" probably also?. -rmhermen - Yep. I wasn't going to bother with the early part of the article (principate not being really my thing), but might as well. - Minor problem with the emperor list: the last emperor was Romulus Augustulus, not Romulus Augustus. Unfortunately the heading on the page for our man spells it the wrong way or else I'd just correct it. I was all ready to castigate some idiot until I realized I was the one who started the page with the typo :-) Sorry about that chief. Is there a way to fix it, or do I need an admin? -- PaulDrye - Well, don't feel guilty about it. We all call him Augustulus (including the copy of Boak & Sinnigen's A History of Rome I have here in the office), but that was always just a nickname. (-ulus in Latin meaning more or less wittle in the baby-talk kind of way in English)

Oh, and I don't know about the page name. -- MichaelTinkler

My vote on Julius Caesar's position is to make sure he stays Dictator -- but then explain what a Roman dictator was -- this clears up two misconceptions at once. Michael, can we add that most of the anti-Livia stuff (although it could be true, and makes for interesting reading) is Suetonius? -- JHK

This article could benefit a general introduction to the topic - it dives right in a bit fast for a lay reader. A simple paragraph at the beginning perhaps giving an overview of the romans (great article though!) - MB

I think it's quite interesting (and sad and a whole host of negative feelings) that people think the Roman Empire was characterized by the doings of the guy on top of the shit heap. The article is called the Roman Empire, right? Not Roman Emperors!

Where's the discussion of architecture, art, social mores, internal policy, religion, languages, philosophy, alliances, foreign and colonial policy? There's hardly any mention of those things (a couple paragraphs out of two dozen)!! No wonder most people have the impression the Roman Empire had a population of a few dozen people!

I think this blind adulation of the guy at the top of the shit heap would provide plenty of fodder for a psychoanalyst. Doubtless, the analysis would prove extremely unflattering. Shame on you all! -- Richard K (someone who couldn't care less who murdered whom and who fucked whom when in order to be able to murder others)

_____

I have the impression that Gaius Julius Caesar is not regarded as an Emperor becuse his authority as Dictator was based on the Republican Constitution (albeit somewhat perverted to his particular needs). Authors such as Robert Syme have shown that it was Octavian (the future Augustus) who launched the revolution that overthrew the Republic. He subsequently based his own authority on the loyalty of the legions, thinly disguised with Republican titles for his various powers. So I'd also say leave J. Caesar as Dictator rather than Emperor.

It was my understanding that the Roman Emperors didn't call themselves Emperor because the word didn't exist then. I thought it came about because each Emperor took the title "Imperator". And that the original meaning of Imperator was that a successful General would be hailed "Imperator" by his legions. By the late Republic it was a kind of way to tell your General that you'd back him in a Civil War. But since Augustus changed things to have the legions swear loyalty to him alone it was natural for subsequent recipients of the Legions' oaths to also use the title Imperator even when they had no triumphs to their names. I guess that the Barbarians pronounced it wrong and came up with "Emperor". Am I making sence?

I noticed that the date of death of Gauis and Lucius Caesar was shown as 2 BC in the Roman Empire entry. Actually Lucius Caesar died in 2AD and his brother Gaius died in 4 AD but I haven't got bold enough to fix it. As a matter of completeness Drussus (Tiberius' brother) died in 9 BC; Tiberius returned to Rome in 2 AD but this was more through the intersession of Livia rather than him being sent for by Augustus; he was kept out of all public life until Gaius died in 4AD, and it was only then that he returned to public life and was adopted by Augustus.

Thanks, Neil Whyman

- If we're still allowed to talk about doings of those insignificant emperors ;-), a few little details might be worth clearing up here. As it stands, the article makes it seem that Tiberius chose to divorce his wife, but I thought Augustus ordered him quite against his wishes. And Caligula's seashell incident may have been a mistranslation of an order that was more reasonable in the original Latin (but I can't remember what it was).

Alex Clark

-

Julius Caesar was actually offered the crown a few times but he always turned it down (he was in a bit of a no-win situation with honours - he accepted them and people thought he was getting above himself. He didn't accept them and people claimed he was getting above himself because he obviously thought he knew better than the Senate). One of the excuses for his murder was the fear that he would accept and establish a monarchy. The Romans had a few issues with the concept of kings/emperors which is one of the reason the early Emperors went with the Princeps title. They were 'first among many' rather than 'rulers' which made it all O.K. Obviously as the public got used to the concept and the Emperors got more powerful they dropped the spin ;-) Imperator was a military title that was given to a sucessful general by his men. In that context Julius Caesar *was* an Imperator because he had been awarded the title however that is totally distinct from him being an Emperor - which he wasn't. Some Emperors like Octavian/Augustus actually got the title legitimately as well. It was later claimed by various Emperors probably on the basis that it wouldn't do to have a general with an honour that the Emperor didn't have and since Rome was so focused on the importance of manly virtues and the Emperor as military commander it stuck.

Faith Lawrence

Comprehensive rewrite?
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to undertake a comprehensive rewrite of this page to actually deal with the subject of the Roman Empire in an encyclopedic fashion, including art, architecture, religion, the economy, the family, life, law and culture. I realize that I am new here and I don't want to step on anybody's toes. The Roman Empire is the linchpin of European and Middle Eastern history, of Jewish, Christian and Muslim thought, and of cultural ideals that influence the lives of everyone reading this, whether they know it or not. This article must therefore be a showpiece for the entire Wikipedia project.

Currently, both the Roman Republic and the Byzantine Empire pages are in better shape than this one. I think the History of Russia series sets an example to aspire to in terms of integration and comprehensiveness. There should be links from this page to virtually every topic in the Roman article index.

Has anyone else out there had thoughts like this? Ddama (05:13, Mar 11, 2004)

 * Yes. I agree with your assessment and think your proposal is laudable; there's currently an amazing amount of fine-grained detail on people, places, things, and events (especially battles :-), but a complete, comprehensive overview is sorely lacking. I also wonder if tackling this topic isn't beyond any one person's ability -- doing it properly would entail doing the same for Roman Republic, obviously. I suggest setting up a Wikiproject to deal with this and actively recruiting people to work on it; there are obviously many editors who've taken an interest in this. --67.69.188.80 06:57, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I have a couple thoughts for this: first, a Wikiproject wouldn't be that useful, because there is only one or at most a handful of articles involved, while Wikiprojects are for topics with hundreds or thousands of similar articles for which people want to have some consistency. I would also offer the caveat that we don't want the article(s) to get too long; some of the big "history of" series are already book-sized, but readers using WP as a reference really want bite-sized pieces that are usefully interlinked. So the game is to set a budget, say 3000 words, write a beginning-to-end narrative to that length, then link to other articles for additional depth on special topics, such as the Crisis of the Third Century. Early emperors will have to be pruned down a bit (OK because they have their own articles), so as to make room for cultural evolution and the like. It's OK to "cheat" by looking at OCD and Britannica to see how they handle depth and content issues. Stan 07:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for all of the suggestions. Does anyone have any idea how to undertake such a massive edit to what seems to be a reasonably active page, particularly if it represents a major change in that page's direction? Ddama

 * Depends on your preferred style and work habits. For myself, I generally find I do my best encyclopedizing in small chunks, in this article's case perhaps one century at a time, and spend some time on connected articles harmonizing their contents with this one. In that mode you can go ahead and edit this article directly - still a low chance of conflicts, plus which you can have proofreaders fixing up the typos incrementally. If you want to do a all-at-once approach, create a new page with something like a "/Temp" added, add a note at top about what you're doing, connect from here and/or your talk page, and work away.  When it's done, you can ask for comments directly, or "be bold" and paste the new version into the existing article and respond to the ensuing critiques and plaudits. In any case, choose which works best for you personally - there have been a bunch of cases where people got ambitious about writing/rewriting long articles, but ran out of inspiration and never finished, while others have written fabulous in-depth articles at one sitting. Stan 17:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the advice. I think I will organize the material on a chronological basis, covering politics, law, religion, literature, art (to the extent available) and economics under each heading. Time constraints will bind me to piecemeal editing. Everyone should be on the lookout :) and I would love to hear any comments that anyone has to make. Ddama

 * Ddama, good on you for undertaking this. I have a question: what do you mean by organizing the material on a chronological basis?  Will you be dividing the history into the classical early, middle, and late empire?  Or will it be in more discrete blocks?  I would suggest the former - it provides ready made chunks of information for easy use. Reid 05:46, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I've been experiencing major technical difficulties for the past six weeks, which may be ending Real Soon Now, so I hope to return to this important work in the near future.
 * I think 4 eras works fine: Age of Augustus, Early, Middle, and Late Empires. Let us now dispute exactly what fits into those periods :). Most Classicists consider the Late Empire to begin with Diocletian. I have other ideas, as good cases can be made for Aurelian and for Constantine, and the Byzantinist in me favors later dates yet (Nicea, Adrianople, etc.), but will bow to the conventional wisdom. The tougher question is where to break the Early and Middle Empire. Nerva? Trajan? Commodus? Severus? the Edict of Caracalla? Conventional wisdom has not coalesced on the matter. Ddama

 * Well, I think that, this being an enclycopedia, we should stick with the conventional wisdom, with regard to the late empire. As for the early/middle empire, I have always favored using Commodus' death as a good point.  The empire undergoes a sever(an) change in tone - the military begins to take a greater role and then the natural disasters start to pile up.  Its almost as thoug Commodus squandered the last of the empire's fortune.  Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.Reid 23:46, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I might also add that each of those headings (society, art, warfare, politics, etc.) can easily become their own page. The nice thing about wikipedia is that it need not fit everything on one page - it need only be easy to navigate. Reid 05:46, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Criticism of histotical texts
Though I'm not involved, is there really nothing the public may see in the following "editorial" note that was recently deleted?
 * It should be noted to the average reader that the amount of negative information concerning early emperors and indeed all emperors to a greater or lesser extent is often false or highly exaggerated. Claims of Emperor Gaius' incestuous relationships with his sisters or the attempts he made to make his favorite horse consul, and the utter contempt history hold against Emperor Nero are the result of the senate and aristocracy of Rome, which doubtlessly opposed minor changes in Roman tradition or culture. A great example can be found with Emperor Hadrian. Shortly after his death, he was declared Memoriae Damnatio by the senate. For his Hellenophile tendencies and his liberal policies towards the Empire (not to mention the great sums of money he spent building in Rome and renovating towns he visited on his trans-imperial tours) he was extremely unpopular, however was restored in public opinion by Antoninus Pius. Nero is the same for his pro-Greek sympathies (which were considered overly-fanciful and un-Roman at times). In contrast, Emperor Antoninus Pius is held in high regards by the chroniclers of the day because of the relative inactivity of his reign. It is wise to examine the actions of Emperors held to be "good" or "bad" and keep in mind the reasons in relations to the Senate why this may be so.

There is material here worth while salvaging rather than suppressing, IMHO. Wetman 02:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why
I was the one who wrote it. Who deleted it, why, and what gave them said right to do so? I am only trying to explain what noted historians of Rome like have to say on the subject. In almost every magazine article or editorial Nero is mentioned in, some outspoken person on the subject always defends him to a certain extent (Especially Dr. Wallace-Hadrill of the British School at Rome). I read Anthony R. Birley's biography on Hadrian, and the senate did damn his memory posthumously, and his image was recovered by Antoninus Pius. I delivered only information that was factual or if not factual cannot be disproven with other facts. So, other than having a bad opinion, why was it deleted? I shall indeed salvage the information and try again.

 * Well, the page history shows that it was Texture. I assume that he was being bold (that is what happens in Wikipedia!) but why not ask him? For what it is worth, I would not have deleted it. Perhaps you should put it back, but possibly in a difference place - say, a new section "Notes on sources" at the end? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:19, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The addition seems generally good, but being about individuals it's perhaps more relevant to Roman Emperor than to the whole Empire. I assume Texture was misled by the wording - determination of the veracity of ancient accounts of the emperors is an important part of classical studies, and is an active research area. Stan 17:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, I will ask him. I do also agree with your comment on adding it to the Roman Emperor page, and will see what I can do.

Late Antiquity in the West

I wrote the "From Roman to Byzantine in the East" and made a beginning on "Late Antiquity in the West". Does anyone have any comments on my work. It is one of my more serious contributions. User:Magraggae 19:34, 13 Jul 2004 (GMT+1)

I would like to see some more context on the 'fall' of the Roman Empire. Perhaps this would be better presented as a separate page.

The Fall of Rome
The Fall of Rome Ian Wheeler “The city that once ruled the universe, is now itself conquered.” quoted a Roman monk and poet as he watched his city starve. They were surrounded by a Gothic army in 476 AD and could not escape. How could such a glorious civilization have such a fall as the Roman Empire? Several reasons in my mind contribute to the historical fall. A few that I will discuss are: the rise of Christianity; the hiring of mercenaries; and the Huns. There is no such thing as ruling all of Europe, only occupying.
 * All of these factors contributed to the fall, of course, some more than others. Constantine I, who was a Christian Roman general, was fighting his rivals over the Roman throne. God supposedly gave him a vision in his sleep telling him to put the Byzantine cross, a sign of his Christianity, on the shields of his men. He did just that and in 312 AD, on a bridge near Byzantium (renamed Constantinople), he marched his men with newly painted shields into battle against his rival Liscinius. He slaughtered the non Christian army and thus proclaimed that he was Emperor. Eventually he split the empire into the eastern and western empire, to make it easier to govern. The western empire was eventually overrun but the Eastern Empire, formally known as the Byzantine Empire, thrived for another century.

 * The second reason I believe contributed was the fact that the empire “outgrew” its armies. What I mean is that the armies of Rome could not protect all of what it had taken. This made it easier for “Barbaric” tribes to invade the northern and eastern European provinces.

Not only were the armies to spread out, but they also consisted of peaceful gothic tribesmen and mercenaries. The Goths who were allowed to come into the empire, unfortunately, were allowed to join the military. They were not nearly as disciplined as the famous, true, Roman legions. They also respected the generals little, and respected Rome even less. Mercenaries basically respected only their generals and cared nothing for Rome itself, much less other generals. Generals often fought each other over the Roman throne.
 * The Huns were nomadic Mongols who were fierce warriors of many languages. They were merciless, pagan, and brutal. Strictly relying on cavalry for their military force, they brought swift, horrific deaths to Teutonic tribes in eastern and central Europe. They forced a large migration of Teutons to the south west; right into the heart of the Roman Empire. The Teutons began invading Rome constantly and eventually destroyed the western empire. Several miraculous victories helped contribute to Rome’s fall, like the bloody battle of Teutoburg forest.

 * Although the Roman Empire is diminished, the impact of its once glorious empire still influences culture, and languages of Europe. Latin, the official Roman language, is the language from which most European languages are derived. Many nations tried to reestablish the empire, but all failed. The infamous, all powerful Roman Empire will go down in history, as a beginning of the modern world, as an introduction of new government, and as the city, that once, long ago, had ruled the universe.

Map?
The map looks to be in a combination of German and Latin.

Might I propose that the sections in German be modified to match the Latin of the rest of the map? --Jeff Anonymous 18:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Timeline of the Roman Empire
I thought this article could use a timeline. So here i whipped up something which might be used as a base for a more refined version. The Caesar/Augustus differentiation does probably not make a lot of sense. Ideas how to make the timeline more compact? --Dschwen 10:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Cool, but vertical would work better I think - the timespan is immense, and some of the names are long. Stan 13:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * How about this? I split it into two collums. Now I need some suggestions on the contents. Should I create seperate categories for events like battles or constructions of famous buildings? How can I make it look more polished? --Dschwen 17:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * To give it a little push, I put it in the article. --Dschwen 22:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary caution

 * Augustus's strategy of intermarriage between the Julii and Claudii resulted in a combination of family and political relationships known as the Julio-Claudian dynasty. This was removed as "untrue" by an anonymous User:68.153.36.3 with no previous record of competence in any history field. Would someone knowledgable add some specifics and return it, if it is not untrue? Or leave it out. --Wetman 18:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * This IP's edits are consistently nonsense and graffiti (since September 2004). the text goes back after all. --Wetman 19:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Julii part of the Julio-Claudians was Augustus (ie. Octavian) and the Claudii part was his wife Livia(the mother of Tiberius, who is actually not a Julio-Claudian, just a Claudian). I am adding this now. --Masamax 08:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

in reference to christianity
I have a question in relation to the government-sanctioned persecution of religion prior to the Edict of Milan and Emperor Constantine (and his successors).

If this violence was precipitated by a majority against a minority of religious practitioners, could the outbursts of violence be considered pogroms? If so, when did these pogroms occur?

 * Perhaps it is more useful to distinguish what was particularly Russian about a pogrom and refer to some parallels with official Roman persecution of Christians. It ossifies flexible thinking to establish a category, label it, and then cram historical facts into the category. `--Wetman 20:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BC/AD or BCE/CE?
An anon user has gone through and replaced (almost?) all year links from the BC to BCE and AD to CE. In most cases they have inlcuded this in the link (60 BCE) which isn't an article. I was tempted to revert the edits, but wondered whether just moving the CE or BCE outside of the link would be better (I don't have time for that at the moment) and so I've left it for now. Do we have a policy on which style to use? Thryduulf

 * There is, a faint preference for BC over BCE in historical eras. Changing them just to change them is right out, so I reverted; anon can get a login and show up here if he/she wishes to argue the point. Stan 13:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Splitting up Roman Emperor
I left a note at Talk:Roman Emperor, but this page seems considerably more active so I think more of the interested parties might see this here than over there.

Roman Emperor is really long. Really long. 67kb, which is even longer than here & over twice the recommended limit of 32kb. I'd like to split it up; at the article's talk page I've proposed four new articles for its body to be divided between. But I wanted to hear everyone's thoughts first. Binabik80 20:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * As a general rule, whenever splitting away material, it's necessary to leave a condensed version of it at the parent article, with an indented note in italics telling the reader where to find the more complete material. As long as this is done, there's little harm in splitting. --Wetman 21:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Splitting the article should be based primarily on structural reasons rather on the (now) mostly arbitrary and outdated 32k guideline. Paul August ☎ 16:55, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well the technical limitations are generally outdated, but there are aesthetic reasons for truncating & splitting articles. 32k is a judgement call but I don't think it's really "arbitrary".  Articles longer than that (IMHO, articles longer than 24k) are almost certain not be capable of giving their readers a general but comprehensive overview of the topic that can be read in a single reading.  Using the 32k guideline allows us to figure out when we're giving a broad topic too detailed a treatment & need to start splitting information up.  Using Roman Emperor as an example: this is the article that someone logically is going to go to for a description of the prerogatives of the Imperial office & an overview of how it evolved over the 500 years the Roman Empire was in existence in the West.

 * They're probably not looking for the 13k treatment of the office during the Principate period that the article had until a week ago, and burying the information they're looking for in that amount of text makes it very difficult for them to find. They get what they want from the 3-paragraph summary that has now replaced that section.  For those who do want a more in depth treatment of that specific topic, they still have the link to Roman Emperor (Principate).  Furthermore, a reader who does want more detailed information on, say, the transition from the Imperial office as belonging to the heirs of Caesar Augustus to being available as a military prize during the Year of four emperors, probably isn't also looking for information about Petronius Maximus legitimising his assumption of the purple through his marriage to Eudoxia, so they belong in separate articles rather than the same long, interminable "overview".  Splitting the articles off like this allows the reader to choose whether they want detailed but narrow information, or broad but general information.

 * The 32k guideline has become soft rather than hard because it's now only aesthetic rather than also technical, but the aesthetic concerns haven't become any less valid.

 * I think Hippalus has a great idea, btw. In the meantime I'm going to finish up splitting Roman Emperor because as it stands now, it's half-split & looks pretty weird. Binabik80 17:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Splitting up Roman Empire too
As a response to Binabik80 (see above): shouldn't we combine splitting up Roman Emperor with splitting up the article on the Roman Empire? Both articles could be split and merged into, for example:

 * Age of Augustus (as this section is already quite comprehensive)
 * Principate
 * Crisis of the Third Century
 * Dominate
 * Christian Empire
 * Late Antiquity in the West
 * From Roman to Byzantine in the East
 * Byzantine Empire

As such they could form a 'History of the Roman Empire'-series, with History of the Roman Empire as a condensed version of the present Roman Empire-article. The article Roman Empire could then become a cornerstone article, with a balance between history, culture, language, architecture, commerce, etcetera. The article Roman Emperor could become an article on the institute of Emperor and its evolution instead of an extended list of Roman emperors. What dou you all think?--Hippalus 09:36, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * That would make a good archetypal scheme for all such splits Hippalus! --Wetman 14:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Looks great to me. I've already started splitting up Roman Emperor, but the text I've so far removed & summarised from that article is preserved pretty much intact at Roman Emperor (Principate) and Roman Emperor (Crisis of the Third Century). Binabik80 15:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks Wetman and Binabik! As all of this is going to be an enormous effort, maybe we should coin it a project?--Hippalus 19:10, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it's a great idea; but not just a condensed form of this article, as it rather biased towards the Western half. -Chris5369 23:00 Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

When is this going to continue? I'd genuinely like to see this page reorganized so it is no longer merely a history article. I'd be glad to help. --Masamax 08:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Flavian Dynasty
I really don't agree with some aspects of the descriptions of the Flavian dynasty. In particular, the lines "Another example of his monarchical tendencies was his insistence that his sons Titus and Domitian would succeed him; the imperial power was not seen as hereditary at this point." bother me, since this was standard practice (and indeed the Emperor Claudius was appointed by the Praetorian Guard for this very reason! --Masamax 10:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Province Template
I'm not sure how to turn this into a template, and it probably needs some editing as well. However, I think we should refine and use this to classify and standardize all the subsequent province pages it links too, and create the ones that don't yet exist. --Christopher 20:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Province Map
I think this is a nice map that we can use as the basis for identifying the locations of Roman Provinces. Most of the subsequent province pages are without maps and not standardized to a certain format. --Christopher 20:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I put it in thumbnail format. Looks good. Only nerds can find Moesia on the globe, eh GWB? --Wetman 23:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * BTW typo Hispania Tarraconensis will fix one of those pseky redlinks. (I'd do it myself if I knew how...) --Wetman 23:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Iain Lee

Iain Lee's free LBC podcast gone!
It seems the wise, intellegent, super smart powers that be have seen fit to take Iain's podcast out of the "free" list at http://lbc.audioagain.com/?action=feeds They are so smart, I'm amazed they havn't taken over the world already. In fact, I'm pretty sure their brains must be so big, they've got some amazingly brilliant reason for doing this. Shame my feeble brain can't quite work out what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.43.21 (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo
Can anyone get permission from Iain Lee to use a photograph on this page? --DaveGorman 12:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most vandalised pages
Due to the constant bad jokes etc I've added this to Most vandalized pages. Joe D (t) 18:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The amount of tiresome vandalism is increasing.

I therefore propose to edit protect this site for a while to allow the vandals to turn their attention elsewhere.--Westminsterboy 00:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So how will this edit protect work --RaptorX 10:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Temporarily block anonymous edits.--Westminsterboy 07:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok --RaptorX 15:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Administrator says 'intensity of vandalism not high enough for action'--Westminsterboy 21:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Raptor, your link doesnt work from my School or Home PC, it simply comes up with a blank page, thus I will again delete it. --JamieHughes

It's working for me, it will work for most people so please don't delete it --RaptorX 18:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

http://groups.msn.com/SWRPCoruscant/misc.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=197 - There is a screenshot of how a PC (have tried on 3 different sources) views your website. Please fix this soon or I will remove it again. --JamieHughes 08:00, 17th February 2006

Okay. I was wrong. Many apologies. --JamieHughes

You're always wrong!

To all of Lee's correspondents
If you are a one of Iain's correspondents and have a website, Please add it into the external links. --RaptorX

I will have to delete some correspondent's websites (Even mine), if they are not a correspondent anymore. --RaptorX 10:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Do we still need the list of sacked correspondants in March, when the correspondant list went through a major change in April?

Iain or Ian?
IANLEELOVE has been moving the page from Iain Lee to Mr Ian Lee & Replace Iain with Ian & In some cases the person has replaced it with Lee --RaptorX 17:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the article back again from Mr Ian Lee to Iain Lee. The "Mr" prefix is contrary to Wikipedia style. Whether the guy's name is "Iain" or "Ian" I do neither know nor care. Lupo 10:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's "Iain". If you see it changed to "Ian" then just do an RV.

To : this page stays here (or just maybe goes to Ian Lee, I have no clue about that). It is protected against moves now, thanks to your repeated unilaterally moving it to titles that are against Wikipedia style. Lupo 13:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It is Iain according to Stephenb (Talk) 16:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll believe you when he changes his official Iain Lee website... Stephenb (Talk) 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

IainLeeLove, surely you realise by now that you cannot win against the all encompassing collective mind of the Wiki? Resistance is futile and merry Christmas.

Wisdom Jones paragraph
I think lots of Wikipedians (Including me) miss out the paragraph about Wisdom Jones. --RaptorX 10:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion page looks a bit of a mess!
I think this talk page should be split into sections. Do you agree? --RaptorX 10:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC) :)

Agree Let's do it.--Westminsterboy 13:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Where the source?
Would the boy working for a certain stock market broker in Bishopsgate and who has been libelling various people on the Wikipedia for some time please stop - now. You know how corporates are getting touchy about the misuse of their Internet connections, especially when things like libel or porn are concerned and server logs are readily available.

 * Legal threats are a little drastic, don't you think? Anyway Wikipedia has a No legal threats policy. Further threats of lawsuits will result in you being blocked from editing.

If contributors to this page continue to leave unsigned messages they may find those conributions edited out.--Westminsterboy 21:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Artice stubbing
I think the article should stubed because it only tells about the his LBC show & it doesn't tell enough about rest of his shows. (e.g. Celebrity Soup, RI:SE & more) --RaptorX 10:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Coming out on Monday's programme
WHAT RIGHT do people have to remove the FACT that he said he was gay on air? You must go through the discussion page first before you remove material entries. 160.83.73.14

I agree this should have gone through discussion before ANYONE deleted the gay entry. . JamieHughes

EXCUSE ME people who listen to the program made genuine comments. It is wrong to just delete them. 84.13.249.206

I was amazed to hear that Iain come out on his program that he is gay! Please keep this in the article as I definatly heard him say it. 160.83.73.14

I always thought it was the case, he just blurted it out on Monday! Brucethebiggaybear

It was the funnyest thing on radio, I was surprised he had a boyfriend! Rolandaslondon

I heard it too - could we put a section in referring to it? ZoeCroydon

It went to air on Monday. Please do not remove. LBC 97.3 Radio Show

Iain Lee's sexuality
I agree 7 people have backed up the gay remark. This deserves to be in the article. It was on the air on Monday. It is even in the Podcast ZoeCroydon

He admitted he was Gay on air Monday. I heard it too. Jimboiain

 * I've put it back in, though I don't know if it needs to be in the lead sentence where I put it. A lot of you have accounts so in a few days they'll have aged enough to edit the article as you see fit. (To clarify, once your account is four days old you can edit semi-protected articles.)

 * Why on earth is this article vandalised so much that it took this long to get the information in? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

the reference to Iain's sexuality has been discussed here and should not be deleted
I don't care if it appears further down but it should appear. I am gay and feel it is very offensive and HOMOPHOBIC if the reference is constantly deleted. 160.83.32.14

I agree, why are people so homophobic here? Jimboiain

 * Assume good faith please, Jimboiain (and everyone else). I find accusations of homophobia offensive (even non-specific ones) and will not bother to work to include his sexuality in the article if involving myself with it is going to leave me open to speculation about whether I am a homophobe or not. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry, it's just that it is so hard to come out and not fair for people to delete without referring to this page! By the way, his sexuality should be a bit higher in the article - it is an important part of his persona. Jimboiain

Having initially put it back in, I'm now inclined to agree with Arniep that this is actually a hoax. A Google search made me think that this was true. However, I didn't look closely enough - there doesn't seem to be any confirmation that Lee is gay apart from the comments here.

Given the extensive vandalism to this page, I'm not putting the gay thing back in - and will take it out if someone else does - until I see a reliable source, such as an official press release or transcript. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

10 people have gone on the discussion page to verify this, I heard it on the radio too. You can look up his podcast. Jimboiain

10 editors are not verification - see WP:NOR. The podcast, however, would be. Do you have a link to it? I'll have a listen when I get home from work. If you could tell me at which point he comes out so I can fast forward through the traffic news etc. that would also be appreciated. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The link is on the page, not sure what time but it was Monday. He came out and said he was Gay and made a comparison between him and Clive Bull as far as I recall. 160.83.32.14
 * Where on which page? Now that Westminsterboy below has claimed that he has said on air that he is not gay, I'm even less inclined to believe this. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If Iain Lee were gay it would be homophobic to delete references to such a fact. Since he has made it clear on air (Thursday 9th March passim) that he is not any such reference will continue to be deleted.--Westminsterboy 17:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have downloaded all of Iain Lee's podcasts from the last 2 weeks. There are no reference to his being a homosexual. Note: none of the editors who claim he is gay has a user page and all use similar puntuation and grammar. I am led to think of sockpuppetting. Minglex 14:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Minglex

(impersonator comment removed)

I just heard the podcast on Monday and he definatly came out as gay. There are a couple of (personal attack removed) on this site that are ganging up on the majority of users who say he is gay. 160.83.73.14 11:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It doesn't matter that the 'majority of users' say he is gay, everything in Wikipedia must be sourced, and so far my request for this mysteeeerious podcast that everyone claims to have heard has gone begging. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

He said he was gay by accident. The fact is I and a lot of people thought it was real. 84.13.94.159

May I suggest this
A large number of people reported that Iain made a comment saying he was Gay on Monday 6th March, 2006. At present this is unverified. 160.83.73.14 13:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Nope. Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. OTOH, show me an official press release or similar where Iain Lee says "I deny the widespread rumours that I am gay", or a gossip column in a half-decent tabloid (not a blog), and that would be a reliable source that these rumours aren't confined to this talk page. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are people so against the fact that Iain is gay? He admitted it today on the radio and Clive Bull just confirmed it. I will email him and put the email here, is that good enough for you HOMOPHOBES!!!! 84.13.75.0 23:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith please, editors are trying to create an article based upon factual sources and if verifiable evidence can actually be produced (it looks unlikely) then it will be included. I note that not including the 'information' (highly questionable) that a straight man is homosexual is not homophobia.Minglex 23:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

One sock-puppeting contributor is not evidence.--Westminsterboy 08:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? . JamieHughes 15:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Note: this user is an impersonator of.

There a a number of people ( the majority) that know Iain said he was gay. That was a very HOMOPHOBIC comment. I am gay and I do not like to be told I put socks on my penis. THAT IS TOO FAR!!!! 160.83.73.14 10:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This place is a little homophobic to be honest . JamieHughes 10:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Note: this user is an impersonator of.
 * So where did you say that podcast was, Jimmy? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you go to the lbc website you should find the link. Monday 7th. . JamieHughes 10:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Note: this user is an impersonator of.
 * Ah, so it's subscriber-only. Convenient. I'm taking Westminsterboy's word for what Iain Lee says in his programmes until I have reason to disbelieve him. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(imposter comment removed)

Again, why? . JamieHughes 15:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Note: this user is an impersonator of.

 * User:. Westminsterboy posted a comment pretending to be User:Westminsterboy. Note the dot and space in the vandal's name. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Something you would know a lot about, it seems, as you are a blatant impersonator of User:JamieHughes. Thanks for drawing my attention to impersonation on this talk page via the Westminsterboy impersonation. Now you can be blocked as well. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you disregard the rest of the wiki community???? I am gay and hate this type of behavior. 160.83.73.14

I heard him say he was gay yesterday too. What is wrong with being gay? I agree this is becoming a homophobia issue. ZoeCroydon 13:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearing this whole mess out
Hello person who keeps impersonating me, although I find immitation to be a sincere form of flattery it is a little innapropriate here. I have dropped Iain an email and hopefully we will be able to get a definate yes or no on the question of his sexuality. I must ask you chaps to wait a while till I get a reply and stop bickering unnesesarily. JamieHughes

 * do you think he's going to give you a serious reply? Arniep 20:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Righto, yesterday evening I dropped him an email asking the question of his sexuality and he has given us an official reply:

"Iain Lee 	to me	 More options	 12:12 am (7 hours ago) yes, ive seenthe furious debate and constant changes to wikepedia.

i am, im afraid, straight

iain" Now do we all think this stupid bickering can stop, and the fact be known that Iain Lee is in fact a member of the Straight community. JamieHughes

he's a gay cowboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.44.39 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Iain Lee getting married
Email just received from Iain:

"Iain Lee to me More options 12:12 pm (1 hour ago) yes, im gettn married.

iain"

This proves it. Brucethebiggaybear 13:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Iain is getting married? To whom? Fifi?

Yes, it looks like it from the email! Good luck to him! Lets edit the article. Fifilover 10:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Proof in the Picture
All the above is obviously a hoax. All these people are working for, or encouraged by Iain Lee to make Wikipedia look stupid, thus, the article should be locked. Arniep 14:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * In fact, I don't see why an insignificant UK radio show host should be covered in this encyclopedia at all. Lupo 14:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

=
=========================== Date:	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:09:35 +0000 From:	"Iain Lee"  To:	"Christina-Marie Phelps"  Subject:	Re: Wikipedia Questions?

im not gay but im getting married

iain >>> Christina-Marie Phelps  15/03/2006 13:45:42 >>> Hi Iain, Big fan. Wikipedia is saying you are: 1. Gay 2. Getting married to Fifi Can you confirm or deny?

C

=
======================== He said it himself. 160.83.32.14 14:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately your credentials are hardly solid after your past behaviour on this discussion are they. And now lots of morons are posting fake emails, I suggest that you post something coming close to a credible picture of said email (which I will examine for fraud) or else what you say can hardly be seen as credible. I suggest Sam (If you could) keeps up the podcast listening and if he actually mentions getting married then we accept it, I listen to the show every day and I have never heard such. JamieHughes

It's completely irrelevant anyway. Claiming that you've received an email is not a source even if it did exist. Emailing people to ask them whether they're engaged is original research. We need a reliable source that people can see without having to email the subject to confirm it. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The same could be said for the gay email you took as genuine. Give me your email address and I'll send it to you.

My email is available through Wikimail same as everyone else's. Go to my userpage and click 'Email this user' on the left. However, you're wasting your time. An email you received is not a source, and given the recent silly buggers on this page I'm not inclined to trust anyone emailing me and saying "yeah, this came from Iain Lee, honest". --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Joke
Just to lighten the mood a put a little joke picture up. Jimboiain 10:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think he looks a bit like Clive bull actually.

 * Sorry Jimbo, but communism is not permitted on Wikipedia. I have reverted your edit as not conforming to the glorious ideals of our capitalist society. Now go out and CONSUME. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (  T  |  C  |  A  ) 10:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Degree?
Iain Lee revealed today he studied Human Biology at Goldsmiths. Somebody add this?

 * no.KillerChihuahua?!? 17:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I heard him say on the show that he pretends to have various degrees, but he actually only has a degree in Performing Arts from (some university I can't remember). I think it's probably best to leave this information out of the page. Pctuk 14:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I heard it. 84.13.84.22 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I heard on the radio when nobody else was listening that he was a time-traveller posing as a human from an advanced alien race 20,000 years in the future, but that doesn't mean I've got a verifiable claim. Minglex 15:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to edit this page
Go to Briefs - i have copied it there. --Godofbiscuits12
 * I reverted that, if you want to play with the article I have no objection to you creating your own sandbox in your own userspace. --Alf melmac 19:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC

This site is a joke
Why can't we put things that are true in this article. That is the whole point of wiki. 84.13.84.22 19:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You can put things that are true, if you have legitimate sources to back them up. JamieHughes

he studied Human Biology at Goldsmiths. we cant put it in. this is pants. they block users who post things. he said it and we even have emails from him but, noooo we can't update. This site is a waste of time. 84.13.84.22

 * The recent sneaky vandalism to this article means we can no longer tolerate adding information which is not properly sourced. 'Sourced' as in 'sourced', not as in "I've got an email, honestly, and this one's real unlike the last one about how he was gay/engaged/a Martian/whatever". --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (  T  |  C  |  A  ) 22:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Real name
I would like it added to the Wikipedia record that Iain Lee's birthname is in fact Iain Rougvie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.72.235 (talk • contribs)

 * Please provide a reliable source and it will be added to the article. Thanks! --Syrthiss 16:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Iain Lee admitted his name was Rougvie live on his radio show at approximately 16.20 on 28 March 2006. You can buy the podcast for documentary evidence at www.lbc973.co.uk.
 * Please note per the notice at the top of this talk page Blogs, emails, and statements made on the radio do not meet this criteria. That does not meet criteria for reliable source. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Might this help? http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=%22Iain%20Rougvie%22 From the groups that Iain Rougvie posted in (Beach Boys, Monkees, Kiss), the vocabularly used ("mentalists", "mental case", "nut case") and general arrogance - I'm pretty certain it's Iain Lee. Pctuk 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In light of my findings, I've added this as fact to the main page.

 * I've removed it pending an actual source. There has been too much hoaxing and vandalism of this article to allow any more unsourced information. Anyone can post messages on the Internet claiming to be Iain Lee. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 2nded the removal. KillerChihuahua just said "blogs, emails, .." and then you say "well look how this guy posts on googlegroups!".  Anything not verifyable from a reliable source should not be included. edit - I thought about it some more and in addition to the above, this addition was based on original research which is also against Wikipedia guidelines. --Syrthiss 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I can understand the overcautiousness given all the vandalism. However, could other reputable Iain Lee fans look at the evidence and verify that this is very likely to be true? (How likley does something have to be for it to be included? Beyond resonable doubt?) These posts show that a pretty hard-core Kiss/Beach Boy/Monkees fan has posted to usenet, using a name that others have said Iain spoke about on air. I doubt this is something that can be 100% proven, but it seems pretty conclusive to me. Anyone else agree? Pctuk 19:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia has stated guidelines for reliable sources. I'm afraid we'd have to see this in print / on the web in one of the listed kinds of sources there.  So while what you say might be verifiable (which is dodgy since it mainly lies in original research inferred from the posts), we need it to be Verifiable.  I'm sorry. --Syrthiss 19:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I understand that you need to make sure that all the information is true. I just think there's a balance between quantity of information and quality, and I think in this case quality is being upheld at the expense of information being left out that is very likely to be true. If someone could upload an audio snippet of Iain saying this, would that be accepted as evidence? Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. Pctuk 20:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So Iain Lee says on his own radio show, using the power of his own voice, to admit that his real name is Iain Rougvie and it's still not verifiable. Ker-razy. Oh well, at least if anyone wants the truth they can check out this discussion and discover that Iain Lee's real name is Iain Rougvie. Job done!

 * Not seeing a question doesn't mean refusal... I'd however much prefer the above backed up with an official record of his real name from his studio, or official record of his legal name change. Him saying it on the air wouldn't be the first or last time that a DJ attempted misinformation. --Syrthiss 17:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * With a name like that I'm not surprised he wanted to change it. Arniep 13:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal
This persistent vandal who can't even spell correctly (it's hetErosexual) always goes staight for Clive Bull to revert constructive edits and Iain Lee to make claims about his sexuality. Surely something can be done?Minglex 17:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally have never posted to Ian Lee and do not like your unilateral changes to clive bull. The page was protected because of you. 66.90.73.96 15:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

 * No, the page was protected because of vandalism by anons trying to add unsourced information by "group pressure", which was proven to be a bunch of sockpuppets. Trying the same thing here will get your ip addresses blocked for disruption.  Thanks. --Syrthiss 15:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Lee
I heard Iain Lee say he was Christopher Lee's grandson on RI:SE a few years ago. The problem is Lee only has a daughter, so... is she Iain's mother? Arniep 18:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

 * That would be how these things happen. ;) That aside, I'd need to see a reference somewhere other than the Christopher Lee wikipedia article (since that info was only added earlier this month, by an anon, and not sourced). Syrthiss 18:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed it before as I couldn't see how he could be his grandson as he didn't have a son, but if it is true that hs birth name is Rougvie then maybe he took his mother's maiden name. I also checked on the Christopher Lee official forum but I couldn't find any discussion of the link. Arniep 19:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He occasionally repeats this claim on the LBC radio show. However, at other times he has admitted that it's simply a lie. Pctuk 08:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Source: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0497420/bio, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000489/bio

"...all of which makes me anxious, at times unbearably so."
Origin of this quote on Iain's show? Minglex 14:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the only words said in the Gorillaz song Double Bass, at 2:54 Phenomenae 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"What you have seen in other peoples windows"
What podcast is it on?

What were those pictures Ian was talking about?

He said he had some pictures of some boy m...

It might be pictures taken by Paul and Val Paxton.

Are they the ones who use to live in Hayes, Middlesex?

Look here

http://middx.net/hillingdon/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6227&sid=3a0840d6dfd69f88b194134bf9368e49

Protection
I have requested semiprotection against anonymous vandals. Minglex 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

When this page returns...
...I think we should delete the majority of the LBC 97.3 page as it is unencyclopediaic bullshit, and it is very often vandalised. It should be condensed into about five lines. 11/7/06 - User:Anon Dude
 * If you register an account you'll be able to edit the article in a few days (if semi protection is not lifted before then). --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're way ahead of me, I see... --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in full support of Anon Dude's version of the LBC radio show section, since it is incoherent and pointless in its current state (who cares about these obscure and unreferenced claims?). Minglex 17:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - though it seems User:Arniep reverted it! Anon Dude 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean up this bollocks! 88.108.190.5 14:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead with it, unless anyone says over the next few days we shouldn't do it Anon Dude 20:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the info is referenced from Iain Lee's website and the LBC site. Arniep 22:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah but this is an encyclopedia not a fan page. We don't need to know about Agent Chris and Bobs relationship, we don't need to know about some correspondants that were sacked, we don't need to know about an obscure race that took place between Lee and O'Brian. Plus it is the source of a helluva lot of vandalism! Anon Dude 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi, what is the point of the vandalism of this article? Its getting beyond a joke now. - Jrgnet  Talk 08:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Elite
Iain plays Elite (computer game) (he's said on radio about it) - Trivia, but whole section had been dropped as 'unsourced'. )--Ricksy 02:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC

Triple M
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but was it not Mixed Mental Mayhem?

Thought i would wait for an answer here before changing it on the main page Massau 09:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Iain TV/radio credits
Television credits include:
 * The Beckhams Go To Hollywood Sky One
 * The Race Sky One & Three
 * Wills and Harry in Vegas Sky One
 * I Love Lost Sky One
 * Law of the Playground Channel 4
 * Citizen TV BBC2
 * Celebrity Soup E!
 * All Star Sketch Show ITV1
 * Flipside Channel 4 & Paramount
 * Gamestars ITV1
 * RI:SE Channel 4
 * The Q Awards Channel 4
 * My Worst Week BBC1
 * You Askin’ I’m Dancin’ Channel 4
 * Liquid News BBC3
 * Thumb Bandits Channel 4
 * Perrier Awards Channel 4
 * E for Edge Channel 4
 * Mental Play UK
 * Thumb Candy Channel 4
 * Critical Mass Channel 4
 * The 11 O’Clock Show Channel 4
 * Parliamentary Awards Channel 4
 * Vent Channel 4
 * New Labour New Language Channel 4

Film credits include:
 * Beyond Borders d. Martin Campbell

Radio credits include:
 * Triple M LBC
 * Lost Podcast Channel 4
 * The Three & A Half Hour 3 till 6.30 Afternoon Wireless Show LBC
 * Guest presenter Capital Radio
 * The Iain Lee Show Breakfast Show XFM London
 * Loose Ends Radio 4
 * Saturday Afternoon Show Radio 6
 * Sunday Service Radio 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.126.177 (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Is he also the current "voice of Dave" (as in the freeview TV channel)? Their announcer namedropped himself recently as Ian Lee. I don't actually know him well enough to spot the voice however - that link is the entire reason I've wound up here in fact. (And does anyone know the name of the deeper voiced and somewhat more likable continuity announcer whom he replaced and briefly partnered e.g. in their rally show trails?) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Real name & page clean-up
Should the page mention his birth name Iain Rougvie? It has been mentioned on air a couple of times and is inlcuded in the (properly sourced) wikipedia entry for former Aberdeen football Doug Rougvie, cousin of Iain. Also I think the page needs a little clean up, it goes on too long about LBC and bypasses some of his TV work. --NoOneReally 18:28, 17 July (UTC)

Template
Shouldn't this be added, as he presents big brother's big ears? Big Brother UK

Unprotection?
Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 June 2012
Should Iain Lee's collum in "Retro Gamer" magazine be included in other work?

LearningTigran (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not - it's paid public work. If you word a section with an appropriate reference from an independent source and post it here, someone can add it. Orderinchaos 11:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if I'm doing this right but: "Lee has been a regular guest collumnist for retro gamer magazine" and then maybe this interview - http://drownedinsound.com/in_depth/4144824-savage-pixels-10--a-retro-special-with-gold-panda-iain-lee-and-some-zx-spectrum-games I haven't done this before, hopefully that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearningTigran (talk • contribs) 10:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Iain Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090506031643/http://www.mediauk.com:80/radio/news/125/lbc-97.3 to http://www.mediauk.com/radio/news/125/lbc-97.3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080327011328/http://tech.uk.msn.com:80/gaming/article.aspx?cp-documentid=7838134 to http://tech.uk.msn.com/gaming/article.aspx?cp-documentid=7838134

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sacked from BBC after "bigot" row?
Should there not be something about this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34842156 ? It seems like quite a big event but there is no mention of it as far as I can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.15.56 (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iain Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220121658/http://www.iainlee.libsyn.com/ to http://iainlee.libsyn.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531105236/http://www.sitegallery.org/archives/2203 to http://www.sitegallery.org/archives/2203

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Radio host Iain Lee keeps suicidal caller on the line for half an hour until ambulance arrives
Not sure where to put this

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/iain-lee-radio-host-talkradio-suicide-caller-ambulance-overdose-im-a-celebrity-a8693726.html?utm_source=reddit.com

John Cummings (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Add Streaming Section?
As Iain Lee has now finished Radio broadcasting and has officially moved his show to Twitch, do you think it would be suitable to create a separate section titled "Streaming Career"?

The latest move is a first by Twitch which is therefore prominent. No radio show has ever gone from traditional to twitch before. Also, lee has an extensive past in streaming have previously done video games and reviews of the 11 o'clock show, one of his listed past shows.

Twitch doesn't fit Radio so I just thought I'd ask here for thoughts. LawlessTiger220 (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of The Late Night Alternative into Iain Lee
There is some content here, but looking at the references, most of this could easily be merged to Lee's actual article. A lot of the references are pertinent to the host himself rather than the show which doesn't seem notable for a full article.    Kadzi    (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Iain Lee