User talk:Luk/Archives/2009/02

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Archive Page goes from 1/2/2009 to 28/2/2009 (dd/mm/yyyy)

Previous conversations prior to 1 February 2009 (UTC) are archived there.


Teddy Mayer

I just gave the facts in biological point of view, I mean, everybody decomposes when they die.TheChrisF (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


checkuser

kindly contact me re the checkuser.Tanbycroft (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please send me an email. Note, though, that I will send this information to the checkuser(s) working on the case if they accept and if I deem it necessary. -- lucasbfr talk 09:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your election page

See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/February 2009 — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice :) -- lucasbfr talk 09:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: feel free to ask me to correct any grammatical errors that might have slipped off! -- lucasbfr talk 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reasons to request CU

Hi I read when to request check user but am still confused. Is block evasion a reason to request it?--DFS454 (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 16:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
In that case you may want to block the user who made this edit [1]. Best--DFS454 (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Replied on this user's talk page - 16:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ask "there"? Where is "there"?

It could probably be done even more efficiently using a database dump, you should ask there :). -- lucasbfr talk 10:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "there". WHERE are you saying one should ask? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Replied at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) 17:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


Vandalism Report

Wasifwasif was repeatedly blanking the entire page. That doesn't seem like a normal edit to me. He blanked the entire article numerous times. After looking at it further, I guess he is trying to move the article to a new location at Category:Islamic_Shrines_in_Tamil_Nadu (which he has now created). However, when I filed the report all I saw was this person repeatedly blanking the entire article(over 3 times). Also, I came upon this from looking at the recent changes and seeing a user had blanked a page. I have no personal feelings whatsoever about shrines in Tamil Nadu. I was just trying to stop vandalism. Secondly, what should be done about this new "category" he has created? It is just a duplicate of an existing article. Thanks.WackoJacko (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I commented on his talk page. -- lucasbfr talk 10:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
So, were you saying to keep the category or the article? Secondly, I hope you see that I was not intending to get into an "edit war", and was just correcting what I saw as vandalism in the recent changes(blanking pages). However, looking at it now, I do see that Wasifwasif was trying to accomplish something by blanking the article repeatedly. Thanks.WackoJacko (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do with the category, I'll try to come back there in a couple of days to see how it goes. -- lucasbfr talk 10:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess the category was already deleted once, and the content moved to what is now the article/list. He was trying to move it back to the category(if I am reading the history right).WackoJacko (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is the deletion/merger discussion for the original category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_26#Category:Muslim_Shrines_in_Tamilnadu WackoJacko (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, deleted then. -- lucasbfr talk 11:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Stale warnings?

Hi Lucas,

On AIV you removed a user and said their warning was stale. Another user gave them a final warning, But the IP vandalised shortly after on the same page. Could you elaborate on your descion? DFS454 (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 11:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok thanks for the explanation --DFS454 (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Anytime! :) -- lucasbfr talk 11:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

user:LOTRrules's incivility

Hi Lucas,

This user has been issuing A LOT of personal attacks[2] . When I noticed I decided to warn them[3]. However, they then proceeded to call me a Troll and suggested only Admins can warn people. Further, they suggested I'm not allowed to edit certain areas of the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Is this worth bringing up at wp:ANI or is that taking it too far? Thanks --DFS454 (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a one time event, ignore it since you're not involved IMO. There's no need fueling the fire further. -- lucasbfr talk 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The SPI archive page

Did you check Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive1 before you deleted it to make way for page move? When I looked at it earlier, the bot was archiving directly to that page, so that the page content when edited had something like:

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for sckpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive1]]

Begin main content here............. etc....</nowiki>

I think several conversations that have been archived to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive1 before you deleted it have been deleted entirely. You may wish to check the deleted contribs..... D.M.N. (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What the... It showed as a redirect when I checked oO... Repairing it. -- lucasbfr talk 17:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
If the redirect is at the top of the page above all content, it will hide the content. It happens a lot with bots who have their user talk pages redirected to their owners' page and then pile up lots of hidden AFD notices under the redirect. MBisanz talk 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah that's what happened, grrrr... Anyway it's fixed now, thanks D.M.N.! -- lucasbfr talk 18:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
'Tis OK. These things happen sometimes. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The worst part is that I did check for archival errors! I learn something new about MediaWiki every day ^^ -- lucasbfr talk 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglemeister Conclusion.

"Thejka (talk · contribs) is Likely." I don't get this. I think this is unfair and incorrect conclusion, but one that I can't defend because this investigation is closed. How can I prove that I am not a sockpuppet? What do I need to do? I don't get this. I make one edit to the Ralph Nader page and I defend it because I made the edit, and somehow I am swept up into these Sockpuppet investigations. This is not a fair assessment. Please, is there anyway to overturn this ruling? Thejka (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see this has been settled with Nishkid64. Please note that checkUser findings are technical, and are not always closing the investigation. You can still comment on the case if you want! Don't hesitate to poke me again if you need help! -- lucasbfr talk 15:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Peter Cox

Go the Peter Cox's official website - the name of the choir is the Prestigious Chapel Choir, hence the capital P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemmabond (talk • contribs)

Hi, I'm sorry but I don't know why you're leaving me this message. Are you confusing me with someone else? -- lucasbfr talk 15:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Negotiate compromise

I do not know if this is part of your job but here are my facts: The user chrisboy had made some additions to the article Legitimacy_(political). He cited a statement of opinion as a fact without any sort of reference. I deleted only a part of the statement citing US as an example for a system of check and balances because i reasoned that the statement 'such as US' as an example is not a proven fact but only an opinion of some authors. There are many liberal thinkers who dispute the same and have authored many books over it. The user chrisboy continued to restore the deleted portion without offering any explanation. When pressed he simply made a oneliner saying i am being ridiculous and do not know the subject. However, he did say that US example is a well known popular fact. He never discussed the issue further and continued to restore the POV statement wihtout any further discussions.

He further complained on me to user and caused block of my ip and user account for 24 hrs alleging abuse of multiple user accounts. The fact is i only use one user account on WP which is undersigned. There may be times when i edit in good faith without logging in. How i am expected to know that editing without loggin in and also while loggin in constitutes abuse of multiple user accounts? The concerned Admin user neither explained me the concept nor accepted any of my good faith edits. I agree to knowledge of having multiple accounts and editing could constitute abuse. But to say that having one user account also could constitute abuse i am puzzled.

subsequent to blockage expiry the user chrisboy left many warnings of incivility and edit wars on my talk pages and never commented on the issues of the article. when i also placed similar warnings on his page he complained to the Admin user that i am making spurious statements on his page. I pray you to understand and follow up the facts and direct the other user to come discussion table. I do not assume badfaith as alleged by the user chrisboy nor interested in ways and means to stop edits indirectly. I genuinely want the article to improve in quality.I hope what i have put in so many words is well taken and understood by you.Brothers in Arms (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's see... I try to stay away from content disputes, since there are others much better at it than me. I suggest you continue to interact with Tiptoety about this matter, I'd prefer the discussion not to take place at multiple places. I will have a look there later. -- lucasbfr talk 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you user Lucasbfr. You seemed to have succeeded in persuading user chrisieboy to relent from his stubborn stand. He atlast cited some source for his insertions in the Article.Brothers in Arms (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with this. -- lucasbfr talk 14:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi there LUCAS, VASCO from Portugal here,

Thank you very much for your help and interest here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Disruptive_editor.2FSockpuppet); in the second entry of the case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas#Report_date_February_9_2009.2C_14:17_.28UTC.29), you state that "...I'm unsure whether a CU is warranted or if the latest user's contributions should be examined on their own merits". It is very well put my friend, but i (sadly) assure you he will not change his ways, he has even grown more sophisticated: in the example i provided for this account, he seems to have returned more magnanimous, enough to leave external links, only removing refs.

Another thing he does is fill the articles with POV/WEASEL and not insert one single ref (which would be a contradiction since he removes all of those!) to back it up. Believe me, i do not know if you are into soccer, but i am Portuguese as i believe the vandal is and all that info he inserts in some articles is 100% lies, just to (supposedly) enhance the article's value and players' abilities.

He also operates with several anonymous IP: for instance, look what he did to my work in this article, just because (it's him, judging by the modus operandi; also, in this example and under the new account KAKD08, he continues to talk/respond to no one and write no edit summaries http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%C3%A9sar_Peixoto&diff=prev&oldid=259579729)

Conclusion: you are 100% right to wait and assume good faith, i just would not make any bets on it :(

Have a nice week, ty again,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  • By the way, and pardon my ignorance: if this does not case apply for a long-range block, which does? Thanks again in advance, mate

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

Hi Lucas, would you mind undeleting File:Silver-Spring-monkey.jpg and File:KeithMann2.jpg? There was a note on the image pages asking that a local copy be kept if they were copied to the commons. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Hope you don't mind, Lucas. --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks, Kanonkas. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Request undeletion of File:Foxgirl.jpg

I had an image under File:Foxgirl.jpg, but unfortunately it was under speedy deletion, so it was removed before there is a chance for debate. I was sure the original source was poster under GPL, but for some reason the deleter failed to follow the source. Jacob Poon 00:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 11:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS aka...

Hi there LUCAS, VASCO here,

about this on-going investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas), here are the "merits" you were waiting for on this vandal's latest account, KAKD08: after a day's pause to see if we would forget, he returned today doing this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Carlos_Fernandes_Vidigal&diff=269806802&oldid=259804600).

Keep up the good work, cheers,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I see Tiptoety blocked him :) -- lucasbfr talk 11:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Email

For the record, you have it :) -- Avi (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice :). -- lucasbfr talk 13:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your note about images

Hi Lucas, the reason we like to keep animal rights images locally is that there have been a few occasions where they've been deleted from the commons, for no reason that anyone can fathom. That means we have to go to the bother of resourcing them, uploading them again etc, so it's easier just to leave a copy on WP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the clarification, I agree with you it's safer to keep them handy then. I removed the nowcommons template so my script doesn't flag them as deletable again. -- lucasbfr talk 20:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
And added {{nocommons}} support just to be sure. -- lucasbfr talk 15:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

65.254.6.241

I take it you do not notify other administrators when you overrule their judgment [4]? --Kralizec! (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I usually don't leave a talk page message when it comes to schoolblock or anonblocks. I thought the watchlist/contribs notification was enough. Did you whois the IP prior to blocking it? -- lucasbfr talk 07:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
For a first time block on an account with only about a dozen total edits? No, I rarely whois these sorts of IPs. And it would appear you use the same technique, since 50% of the blocks you have made since your reply (User:193.63.160.80, User:209.112.185.47) were also "short" hardblocks on highly shared IPs (a school and an ISP). However on the topic of non-descriptive block messages [5], I cannot help but notice that your block notifications to both of these IPs ([6], [7]) included neither the reason why they were blocked nor for how long (whereas for the IP where you are critiquing my block, I included both the reason why (vandalism) and the duration (24 hours) [8]). However since you later rephrased your statement [9] to remove the "non-descriptive block message" part, perhaps you were just feeling a bit put-off or defensive from my rather direct initial question. I guess no one (including super rare admins like the both of us who passed their RfAs on the first try without getting even a single oppose or neutral !vote) enjoys having others question the judgments they feel are sound. Thank you for your time and consideration, Kralizec! (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed my first message was unneededly bitey, that's why I rephrased it as soon as I proofread it. My apologies for that version, I shouldn't press Save too soon in the morning.
In fact I almost always /whois the IPs I block. When it's a school that edits for more than a few days, which usually means that more than one person sit behind the screen, I usually block for a long time (eg more than a month) with a anon or school template for PR reasons. I did not realize anyone would object to a "block conflict" on an IP (that happens to me sometimes) since I never took it as someone questioning my judgment. However I'm not sure the burden of letting the admin know is that worth it since I agreed with the block. My apologies if that offended you, that was not meant as it, just as a Public Relations tweak. Arguably, for a 24hrs block, I should have left it as it was since it was unlikely anyone but the vandal would see it. -- lucasbfr talk 14:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RFCU page

The RFCU page now has all these collapsable blue boxes. Another user, possibly Deskana (or was it another well respected user), agrees with me. The boxes should be open so that everyone can see them, not just users that devote all their time to the RFCU board instead of editing. Will you start a campaign to change it? A board with no boxes can be scanned for 2 seconds then one can go about editing. Opening each box is simply not user friendly and reduces participation. Chergles (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should directly ask at WT:SPI :) I have no opinion, I find both systems convenient, in their own ways. -- lucasbfr talk 19:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

AIV - plagiarism

Hi Lucasbfr. In case you didn't see, I left you a response to your comment at WP:AIV. In short, this user's edits are vandalism, because he's blatantly plagiarizing from this. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my original report. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 08:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but with all due respect, I'm not sure why you fully protected the page. No offense to you intended, but this is not an edit war or content dispute; I'm simply reverting repeated instances of blatant plagiarism, which is a form of vandalism. The user's only edits are adding over and over again the exact same sentence, which is copied directly from another source. I believe the appropriate response is to block the disruptive editor, not to prevent everyone else from editing the article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding my reaction. I reverted his edits three times trying to be as civil as possible (edit summaries like "revert good faith edit" [10][11]), and the first talk message I left him was very mild. This isn't the case of a user who is well-meaning and should be given a chance; this is a user who has already been given a chance and has ignored repeated [12][13] requests to stop plagiarizing. If his edits were adding "penis penis penis" then no one would call it an edit war if I reverted him 10 times, and plagiarism is just as bad.
On a side note, protecting the page hasn't stopped the user from disrupting; now he's just started to insert the same plagiarism in a different article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I requested un-protection at ANI, here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Damn, someone beat me to the block button :). -- lucasbfr talk 08:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for unprotecting. Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Block IP user 66.189.55.151

I didn't know where to go with this, so I thought I'd tell you. There's an IP user (66.189.55.151) and he must be blocked. He has already vandalized the Government talk page and the Finance encyclopedia page (edits which I have reverted). I have already warned him on his talk page (I didn't know if that was my responsibility or not, but someone

had to do it). I was going to do something else on Wikipedia, and he's wasting my time. Thankfully, the Government talk page was on my watchlist, so he won't get away with this. Please look into and correct this problem. THANK YOU!! E. Novachek (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 08:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Last Wizard

Hello!

I see you blocked this user because of his editing. But I now suspect he has come back to the article in violation of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK as 59.96.61.30 (talk · contribs). I'm sure it's him. Is there anything to do to check it? Shahid • Talk2me 11:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. No need to check, it's kinda obvious :). I think this should learn him :) -- lucasbfr talk 11:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I think he has multiple IP addresses if he was able to edit with another IP. I think his block should be extended if he keeps at this track. But the decision is yours. Thank you for the help. Shahid • Talk2me 11:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a hard block, if he remains on that IP he won't be able to edit as long as the IP block remains. That being said, it'll still be time to extend the account block if that doesn't stop him. -- lucasbfr talk 11:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai

hey man!! please don't misuse admin powers. could you please explain why you removed Hindi name??? adding hindi name in the lead section is not a vandalism. aishwarya rai belongs to HINDI speaking family, so i added HINDI name, whats wrong with that??. & there is something called WP:BOLD, WP:NPOV, you are an admin and you know that too, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.135.216 (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion is vandalism. An user doing the same kind of edits to that article was blocked less than 10 minutes before your edit. If it's not you, you are unlucky. If it's you, keep in mind that common practice is to extend the original block each time something similar happens. -- lucasbfr talk 11:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's funny how he said the same things that the previous did. Just to clarify, her mother tongue is Tulu. WP:BLP, WP:PN have to be taken into account in this case. The foreign script has to be of the person's native language (in this case - Tulu). At first, he said she had no mother tongue at all. Laughable, but despite that I cited a source that her mother tongue is Tulu. And now he says that the family of her husband speaks Hindi...
Well, anyway. Lucasbfr, I'm extremely grateful to you for your help. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 11:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I try not to get involved in who's right or wrong, and to judge only based on the policies. You might want to comment on the article's talk page. -- lucasbfr talk 13:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I was not at all trying to get you involved. I just wanted to clarify the matter. Overall, what you have done is exactly what I expected from you to do. And I thank you for that. Shahid • Talk2me 13:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Image issues

Thanks for the heads up.

I've tried to resolve these :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Unblock Request

It was just done today, with Block ID: 1319332 and the IP is 147.226.201.139. I can forsee this being a problem, and if you look through my contributions, there isn't anything to suspect i would abuse the flag. The IP belongs to Ball State University, and I requested Prodego online for the original unblock on this block. I just think the flag will keep any futher situations from happening. 17:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the user page protection - much appreciated! Cheers, --Bonadea (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too - many thanks! I've never been semi-protected before, another first!, Best wishes,  Badgernet  ₪  16:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem :) If that happens again, give me a shout and I'll protect indefinitely. -- lucasbfr talk 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

LGOutcast

Ah, thanks for that! Welcome to the team, mate! ;-) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bleh, I need to be 20 minutes faster, that's all! :D -- lucasbfr talk 22:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Images moving to commons when image already exists there.

I just came across your edits er File:Schleswig_holstein_hei_(1).png. I don't know where the whole moving process started, but would it not have been simpler just to delete the enwiki version File:Schleswig_holstein_hei.png rather than create a duplicate at commons? Agathoclea (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 10:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

Congrats on getting elected to checkuser - and coming in first in the election with nearly unanimous support, no less! I am sure you'll do a good job. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :) I hope I'll live up to the expectations :) -- lucasbfr talk 07:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Congrats from me too! Tiptoety talk 22:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Adurimovie sock puppetry

Sorry, I was not clear about that... Makes sense tho...--Cerejota (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) -- lucasbfr talk 08:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Loy Wong and User:Hamish Ross

As you said, this edit was done by Loy Wong. It seems to resemble several edits by sockpuppets pof Hamish Ross on User talk:The JPS - such as this by RSPCJPS and this by TL 4 HB. Is there any connection between these 2 groups of accounts? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Completely Red X Unrelated, I'm afraid. -- lucasbfr talk 13:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have had suspicions about User:Loy Wong being connected to User:767-249ER a serial vandaliser of my talk page and many of the articles I've edited. There were a few coincidences but nothing linking them directly. After seeing Loy Wong linked to another sock puppet, I thought I'd mention it because you might find a connection there too. Or maybe, they might just know each other. J Bar (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 Stale The last edits from these users were in early 2008. But it's a possibility (I note the IP is only suspected of being him). -- lucasbfr talk 09:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

David Self UK writer and broadcaster

Hi I want to start apage on a remarkable guy who died last year and was a writer and broadcaster... how do I do this and below is an obit on him I want to post. Please advise...Simon Simon6467 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

David Self (Writer & Broadcaster)




TEACHER, broadcaster, author, journalist, and drama critic — the range of David Self’s activities reflects his remarkable ability to communicate clearly, effectively, and wittily in many diverse contexts, and for any age group.

After Manchester Grammar School, where he excelled academically, he trained as a teacher, before joining the staff of Rossall School to teach English and RE. He then became a lecturer in drama at the College of St Hild and St Bede in Durham. At that time, David Self’s family moved from Cheshire to Newcastle, where his father was the Agent for the Bank of England. Frequent visits to Newcastle Cathedral extended David’s love of cathedral music and worship.

It was also while at Durham that David began writing books to support teachers and students of English, drama, and RE. His prolific output numbers more than 80 titles.

In recent years, he published some of his most successful books with LionHudson. These include The Lion Encyclopedia of Christianity, the Treasury of Saints, and The Lion Encyclopedia of World Religions, which was launched on 20 June, only six days after his death. It was a mark of David Self’s clarity of thought and style that these books, although written primarily for children, have an appeal that spans all age groups.

After Durham, David Self began his freelance BBC work, mainly as a drama-writer and feature-maker for School Radio, later enjoying a short, six months’ attachment as a producer, based at Broadcasting House.

His extensive knowledge and love of drama led to regular contributions as a theatre critic on Radio 4’s Kaleidoscope. He had already been contributing to a number of journals as a media reviewer and critic: among these were The Listener and the New Statesman. In addition, The Times Educational Supplement commissioned frequent book reviews and a weekly advice column, containing ideas for collective worship in schools.

He explored social, media, and religious issues in national newspapers, notably The Guardian, where he contributed to “Face to Faith”, and The Sunday Telegraph, where, last year, he wrote a challenging critique of the Anglican Communion’s turmoil over gay issues.

David Self was an editor’s dream contributor. Not only did he always meet deadlines, but every piece or script came with a guarantee that it had been well researched and well argued, with a strong narrative thread, invariably witty, which made it accessible for a wide audience. His review of a book about the story of Channel 4 was published in the Church Times in February. The opening sentence epitomises his gift for engaging the reader with a striking image or turn of phrase: “If the BBC is the Established Church,” he wrote, “and ITV an excitable, unpredictable Pentecostal organisation, then Channel 4 might be compared to an off-the-wall sect.”

A life-long Anglican, David Self preferred the liturgies he had grown up with as a child in Altrincham. In The Guardian last year he echoed Alan Bennett’s view that “the trouble with these modern services is that they’re so very unsettling.” In other areas of church policy and practice, he cheered on many of the changes, but spoke and wrote forcefully about his dismay at the Church of England’s failure to affirm gay relationships. He and his partner, Majid, were among the first to enter into a civil partnership in 2005.

Even when at his most combative, he was, as one editor put it, “courteous and civilised”. Although never active in formal diocesan or synodical government, David Self lit the blue touch paper under many explosive church issues, drawing the attention of the general public to them through his writing and broadcasting. For many years, he was a frequent contributor to Radio Norfolk, and presented for Anglia TV more than 200 editions of The Big Question, a religious programme where contemporary moral and religious issues could be explored — a precursor of The Moral Maze.

David Self’s intellectual rigour was often deceptively concealed by the light touch with which he presented his ideas. His teasing, quirkish sense of humour was always just under the surface, if not visibly on display. He was hugely amused when some eyebrows (maybe tinged with green?) were raised when he became the regular question-setter for the ITV quiz show Sale of the Century. The vast information card index he set up for this, in the pre-computer era, became the basis not just for the thousands of questions “carefully crafted for Nicholas Parsons and the audience”, as he put it, but also for his many future publications and broadcasts.

David Self described, in a New Statesman piece, how he started on this work, which some saw as intellectual prostitution: “My life as a quizmaster extraordinaire began when I was propositioned in a gentlemen’s lavatory at Anglia Television. The guy at the next stall looked at me sideways. ‘Would you write me some general-knowledge questions?’ He suggested a fee. By the time he’d washed his hands, I was a fallen man. In eight years on the game, I set 130 questions a week for 26 weeks of the year.”

David Self died, after a short battle with cancer, on 14 June at Peterborough District Hospital, aged 67. The funeral will be at St Andrew’s, Whittlesey, on 30 June, at 11.30 a.m.

Geoff Marshall-Taylor was Executive Producer, BBC Education. Simon6467 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on this user's talk page - 12:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Askebh and 87.61.179.193

Hi, the block of 87.61.179.193 (talk · contribs) is over and here we go again. Please blcok this sock again (though he is sure to return with a new IP number, of course). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeez...  Done -- lucasbfr talk 12:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I award you the most Vulgarly Vandalised User Page owner

I enjoy entering funny things in user pages and came to your page to have a fun... Before doing so I went through the history and understood that only your User Page has the maximum vulgar bombardments (personal attacks) and hence I decided to award you the 'most Vulgarly Vandalised User Page owner'

I hope you have irritated people to the max and hence they have praised you with all these vulgar words....

Any how... Enjoy with that!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.6.82 (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hummm... I don't know how I'm supposed to take that oO -- lucasbfr talk 14:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luk/Archives/2009/02&oldid=1139071892"