User talk:Murgh

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hergé

Murgh, my update to Hergé was marker as "(rv revision by Mapryan (talk) until sources are presented)". I'm new to Wikipedia, so could you point me in the direction of what I need to do to resolve this? Incidentally, the changes are made are direct quotes from Remi recorded in the interviews presented in the program "Tintin et Moi". Cheers Mapryan 17:41, 25 February 2007 (GMT)

Sure thing. In order to make such an edit stick, there needs to be added information within a Citation template such as Template:Cite video :

<ref name="Tintin et moi">{{cite video
 | people =
 | year =
 | title =
 | url =
 | format =
 | accessdate =
 | medium =
 | location =
 | publisher =
 | time=
}} </ref>

as in the case of the documentary you are referencing. Simply copy/paste in the "table" right after the statements and fill in the applicable Tintin et moi info. This way WP is a useful tool for research, allowing readers to verify for themselves. Hope this is helpful, cheers, MURGH ^disc. 18:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the example. Incidentally, where it says time=, I assume that means how many minutes into the relevant programme the quote occurred? Mapryan 18:51, 25 February 2007 (GMT)

Yes, it's the place to indicate elapsed time, or timecode if available, for a very specific citation. MURGH ^disc. 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

One last question (I hope). Can you give me an example of a page where this has been used? Be nice if I do this to try and get it right first time, so it'd be useful to see a previous example. Thanks again, Mapryan 20:29, 25 February 2007 (GMT)

Going to that template's page, you'll see on left side menu: "What links here" -> Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Cite video to a long list of articles that employ this template. To pick just 1? eh.. Matt Groening MURGH ^disc. 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've just gone through the video and added the appropriate sections to the Wikipedia page. If you could give it a quick once-over for me that'd be much appreciated. I'll probably do a few more of these in the future related to other subjects so it'd be a good thing if I could do the right thing (if you see what I mean) Thanks Mapryan 21:02, 25 February 2007 (GMT)

That worked out nicely, just to let you know what I did to follow up: Once a reference is repeatedly used only a short reference is necessary, like this: <ref name="Tintin et moi"/> Notice it's identical to the initial ref's intro, except for the / closing the end. Also it is normal to compact the table after you're done adding info. Here's the diff[1] of what I did to polish it up. But hey, well done. MURGH ^disc. 21:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Incidentally, the reason for the multiple similar tags was that the time in the video is different for each relevent quote. Is there a way to reflect that in a more shorthand way? For example, as all the rest is the same, could you say something like this? Kind Regards Mapryan 21:02, 25 February 2007 (GMT)

<ref name="Tintin et moi">{{cite video
| time= 32:23}}

That would be handy but I haven't seen any device like that. I simply altered your first ref to accomodate the subsequent ones, so it read: time= 10:20-10:40 which is a little crude but still useful. MURGH ^disc. 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for all your help with this. Mapryan 21:37, 25 February 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Rene Goscinny

I can agree about the reference section. But in the categories you must put the surname, otherwise it'll be listed under the R of René instead of the G of Goscinny. Bye and good work. --Attilios 12:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad you agree. Not sure how brand new Template:DEFAULTSORT is, but it is very clever and effective, preventing what you mention there. MURGH ^disc. 13:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "previous commentator ... his criticsims"

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Cove (webcomic) you wrote: "Furthermore the previous commentator ought to cool it with getting personal as his criticsims stands some criticism themselves." Was that directed at me? I'm the commenter right above your comment. -- Dragonfiend 05:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. There was an edit conflict, and I didn't change the text since you neither wrote in comment, nor was getting personal. MURGH ^disc. 05:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I took the liberty of cutting in line, so there would be no future misunderstanding. Sorry about the confusion. MURGH ^disc. 05:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for clearing up the confusion. -- Dragonfiend 05:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons POY 2006

I confirm vote for pic 4 from my normal en:WP account, same guy as commons:User:Murgh MURGH ^disc. 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venus

Hi there, re this edit, the anon editor was probably not vandalising. Venereal is indeed an archaic adjective relating to Venus, as is Venerean. I'm not sure what version had the greater historical usage when in reference to the planet, though, so I won't think of changing your edit back. Best regards, — BillC ^talk 19:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's possible my summary was harsher than deserved, but it was nevertheless an unexplained switch of text. Had the contributor included both, (and ideally justified it in summary) I would have left it alone, but substituting and adding a joke with double entendre, the editor would need to make a better case for the change, I think. But hey, if it's important it'll reappear, hopefully better. Cheers, MURGH ^disc. 00:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Hart and Christianity Today source

Could you explain in more detail why you don't consider the source to meet WP:RS? Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the Today's Christian made incorrect claims about the awards leading the article to feature a factual error in its opening paragraph, with an apparently legitimate source attached. These lines, for instance, are useless from a sourcing perspective:

—Best Cartoonist of the Year (France's highest cartooning award)
—The Sam Adamson Award, twice (Sweden's international award for graphic artists)

It's unacceptable to keep it under the pretense of providing a source for Hart's awards, and there are many better sources. This [2] for one. I see other problems with this article posing as encyclopedic reference, but it may not be necessary to get into that. MURGH ^disc. 03:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. JoshuaZ 19:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Cross checking is good. MURGH ^disc. 12:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester United F.C.

How can you possibly think Manchester United is anything but a world-famous club? The vast majority of people around the world know of the club, and I should know, having been to many different countries worldwide. Please stop removing the "world-famous" statement on the Manchester United page, or I will have you reported for vandalism. PeeJay 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This message I just had to answer on your talk page. MURGH ^disc. 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. I have given you a perfectly good reason why the "world-famous" statement should be left in, and yet you removed it again! Why, dude, why? PeeJay 00:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Then we are talking past each other. I don't think you have given a good reason. I don't disagree with the world fame, it is common knowledge and well-sourced, but the sentence as it stands becomes a mockery of NPOV. To say something is famous world wide once is fine, but to write "...world-famous English Football club ... and are one of the most popular sports clubs in the world, with over 50 million supporters worldwide" is untenable. This is the first line and already encyclopedic impartiality is blown. If the exact phrase "world-famous" is of utmost importance, then the sentence has to be redrafted at the cost of "most popular in the world, world wide" which I'm certainly fine with. You really can't see my point here? Would you like to seek advice from someone who doesn't have Manchester United on their watchlist? MURGH ^disc. 01:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Murgh. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested moves

A few weeks ago, you began to make several requests to have articles about comics moved to names which were compliant with WP:NCC. These were not listed at WP:RM, and so have not received any attention. Most of the targets appear to be red links, so there should be no obstacle to your making the moves yourself, or, if you think discussion is necessary beforehand, you can complete the requests according to the instructions at WP:RM. I have found nine, although I may have overlooked a few: Talk:300 (comic book); Talk:Blueberry (comic); Talk:Bobo (comic); Talk:Cupido (comic); Talk:Jeremiah (comic); Talk:Léonard (comic); Talk:Redbeard (comic books); Talk:Warrior (comic); Talk:XIII (comic book) (this last one actuallly contains some discussion). --Stemonitis 09:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Murgh has struck out the completed moves

Well at least someone noticed ;) I have been doing these moves for quite a while now, until now entirely unopposed, so the surprising responses at XIII (comic book) halted me in my tracks, and I turned to the comics wikiproject to seek consensus support, but it has been slow moving, and I eventually realized my concerns might have to be brought up at the comics naming convention discussion. It seems (comic book) isn't as undesirable as I initially thought, but I thought I'd have a go argumenting for a change there. This is unrelated to the ones simply tagged (comic), and I will get around to moving those, controversy-free. Thanks for reminding me. MURGH ^disc. 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I only came across them in clcearing out the half-formed proposals and so on that accumulate in Category:Requested moves. So, just make sure that you remove the {{move}} tags once you're finished, and everything will be hunky-dory. --Stemonitis 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I pledge to do that :) MURGH ^disc. 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I award thee...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For the extraordinary work put into the creation of the Anniversaries page. Zuracech lordum 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		For the commendable cooperation that you have demonstrated alongside Fram. Zuracech lordum 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the heads up

Wow, that's scary. Thanks so much for the heads up, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Yes it is creepy. Murgh ^disc. 14:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a note for Raul654 (talk · contribs) about blocking that IP. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bédétheque

Murgh, I think we better not use Bédétheque too much as a source or external link, since it is basically a Wiki (i.e. not a reliable source), where most of the relevant info can be found in the BDM catalogues anyway, or at the homepages of the editors (Dupuis, Casterman, ...). I know that Bédétheuqe is often correct, but I don' think any of the info is really indispensable. The BdOubliées is perhaps not much more reliable, but the info on it is often not reproduced by books or more reliable publications, so can be kept as a reference until then. I have removed Bédétheque from the Hubinon article, and I think it is perhaps best if we remove it from every article that has been checked against the BDM (or the Dutch Matla catalogue where applicable). Fram 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if you really think so. I've never seen BDM catalogues online (and don't own any) but they only go back to 1979. Publishers vary quite a bit how well they present records of their past publications. While some are OK, others range from poor to 'out of business', so in my experience Bedetheque biblios often present the only opportunity to find, for instance, the publisher, date and ISBN of a 70s Pichard album. By my gauge more reliably than a wiki, and in some cases indispensably. Not their bio stuff, mind you ;) Murgh^disc. 09:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the BDM is not online, but we usually favour printed sources over online sources anyway. And the BDM was first made around 1979 (don't know the exact date, and the Matla is from 1977 as well I believe), but of course it contains the info for all (or many) comics from the beginning of the comics industry (I think the oldest is a Töpffer from 1837). So Publisher and Date should be easily found through BDM, ISBN may be a problem though (although ISBNs are missing from everyting older anyway of course). And Bédétheque is less complete than BDM. It e.g. misses "Panda" by Marten Toonder, published by La Libre Belgique in 1951 or thereabouts. It also has typos (well, the BDM probably as well, but Bédétheque seems to have more of them), see e.g. "L'espiègle au gand (SIC) coeur"[3]. Another incomplete example: it only lists 69 of the 100+ "Néron" (Nero (Flemish Comics)) titles[4]. It only has two of the Zozo comics[5] (there are, I believe, some 15 of them, I don't have my BDM nearby). It even only lists two albums by Töpffer. Basically, it seems good for recent comics and seriously lacking for older comics. Fram 10:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt BDM is the legitimate option, but as far as researching bibliographies, many Fr-B authors use multiple publishers, and the publishers themselves are unconcerned with that, often only printing the most recent dates and ISBNs of publication (if that) so there is no available alternative, unless BDMs have been applied to verify.. I guess what I mean is, Bedetheque is the closest to an RS found online. If a bibliography is to be included in an article, some resource should be indicated..? Murgh^disc. 12:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree,as long as the biblio has not been checked against the BDM, Bédétheque is acceptable. However, once someone has checked and (if needed) corrected the bibliography against BDM (or some monographie for an author, many of the well known authors have monographical books or reliable magazine articles written about them nowadays), the Bédétheque linked should be removed and replaced by the more reliable BDM one. Fram 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good routine. Maybe something worth preparing a template for? Incidentally, do you think a Taskforce:European comics under the WikiProject Comics is a good idea? Most editors under the big umbrella have US comics closest to their hearts, so it could be useful to pull together for those of us that have other priorities.. Murgh^disc. 13:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-creating deleted articles

A tag has been placed on Sore Thumbs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Sore Thumbs is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Sore Thumbs saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. /Blaxthos 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote on Blaxthos talk, I am not impressed with the reasoning that came to the conclusion that I had created this article before and needed to do it again after my failed AFD, or re-created it after someone elses's failed AFD, but this got speedy tagged on a whim, which resulted in an admin speedying within few hours. Struggling with AGF, I think it's quite ridiculous, and a flaw within WP that the system can be played that way. Murgh^disc. 10:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. The message you received was placed on your talk page by me. Additionally, nothing states that you recreated the same article, or that you recreated your own deleted article. It was simply a courtesy to let you know that the article was already created and subsequently deleted due to notability concerns. It doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion, and so has been removed. Please check out WP:AGF. Thanks. /Blaxthos 14:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am quite calm. And I now see it didn't meet your criteria at this AFD. although I think AGF skipped a chain in the events here. Not having endured your frustration with this article continually appearing, I could imagine it becoming a peeve, and easy to forget that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Murgh^disc. 19:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userfied Sore Thumbs

Okay Murgh, I userfied only your revisions of Sore Thumbs to your user space, User:Murgh/Sore Thumbs. Did you want the associated talk page or can I delete that? Steve block Talk 19:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It comes with the territory, my passionate plea and all that, so if it's no problem it would be nice ;) Murgh^disc. 19:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. If you do take it to deletion review, keep me posted. Steve block Talk 19:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoga poll

Hi! There's some discussion on whether using "asana", "yogasana" or "yoga asana" as the article title. If you are acquainted with the subject, you are invited to drop your opinion at Talk:Yogasana#Opinion Poll on this article's name. Davin7 09:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC) 07 (UTC)

[edit] Le blog de Frantico

Thanks, I was a bit hasty there. Thanks for all your other work as well, by the way. I would have to check more of your contribs to see if all your work is up to the same standards, but assuming it is (civil, neutral, helpful, ... and so on), would you ever consider becoming an admin? If so, I might nominate you, as we can always use more admins. Fram 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no prob. Thank you for the admin thought. I may like that in the future, once I've grinded down my baby teeth and effortlessly behave like a model wikipedian, but for now I know there is still stuff to learn. There are also the responsibilites of adminship that would mean doing less what I'd like and necessarily be involved in conflicts which isn't very appealing. I've noticed your Wikipedia activities took a slight shift after you became an admin and I'm not sure I envy that development. Not to mention the potential horror of an RfA which would probably prompt quite a few statements like "doesn't need the tools" which is true. I can help with European comics and fight astronomy vandalism just as well as things are now, but maybe I'll get an expanded perspective in the future. I'm very pleased about you enquiring though, so thanks for making my day. MURGH ^disc. 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reluctance :-) If you ever change your mind, feel free to drop me a note. Fram 22:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks again. MURGH ^disc. 22:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

You have been reported for vandalism. Do not remove information that has a reputable source. 122.49.166.14 19:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would report me, please do. The edit you made had all the conviction and self-righteousness of the above message. It seems you must really believe that HMV, a vendor of music, publishing this top 100 most influential artistsThe List So Far.... list (stating nowhere in English who has ranked Serge Gainsbourg #62, does it in Japanese?) constitutes not only reliable source but reputable source. Just as if it were an Amazon or Virgin publishing such a ranking, it not only isn't RS, but it has no business concluding the lead paragraph of a biographical article.

It's puzzling all over as your user contributions show you (though maybe not you being an IP contributor and all) deemed Spin an unreliable source. It may cause me future grief, but I'm sorry to tell you I would remove it again. MURGH ^disc. 22:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

1. HMV is one of the most respected names in the music industry.

2. Sources do not have to be written in English.

3. Registering a Wikipedia account does not make you more special than editors who do not register.

4. I do not remove any sourced information that is from a respected news publication, industry company, or from anyone that is a representative.

Furthermore, according to your opinion, lead paragraphs like "Since the 1980s, his legacy has been firmly established." should not be included, nor should references to the "guardian"

Remove this information again without consensus, and you will be reported for edit warring, and also vandalism again. This is a warning!

Your above comment will also be taken as bad faith. I suggest you read the Wikipedia guidelines. 122.49.166.14 00:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave your edit alone because:

1. I'm quite certain someone else will assess your edit as I did.
2. I hope never again to be in contact with person 122.49.166.14, who sees no hypocrisy in branding "vandal" and accusing others of "bad faith" etc.
3. The above statements smack of creepy zealotry, really making it difficult to refrain from replying in an uncivil manner.

   Further communication from this IP will be ignored and possibly removed. MURGH ^disc. 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Murgh. The source isn't really reliable and the "fact" is trivial and non-encyclopedic anyway. IrishGuy ^talk 00:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain why? Is it because you can't speak Japanese? How is this trivial, when almost all other articles relating to musicians mention similar things? 219.90.242.174 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Murgh outlined the valid reasons above. Additionally, switching your IP address to continue edit warring will simply result in both being blocked. Stop. IrishGuy ^talk 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Size Selection

(Is this the appropriate page for this discussion? If not, feel free to move. If it's all been gone over before, could you supply a reference?)

What are the Wiki policies on image sizes? On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirou_et_Fantasio, for example, the albums photos are 300 pixels wide. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crab_with_the_Golden_Claws, the book cover image is 200 pixels wide, but the frame it's inside causes it to take up 290 pixels of the horizontal space for the text. The right and left picture margins are twice the size of any other margin on that page...

There are still some that think everything should be easily visible on an 800x600 laptop, Web-safe colors, and paint quickly when seen on a dial-up line, but checking the figures, the viewers for whom all those considerations are true are under 5% and have been dropping every year considerably. On the other hand, average screen size is getting larger, and many graphic cards don't even have a setting anymore that allows using as few as the "Web Safe" colors. In such situations tiny thumbnails look miniscule. Another consideration is the owners themselves -- generally they like their work represented in the most favorable light; for example, being able to see the publisher's name, logo, text, expressions on faces.

Regardless, resizing a photo downward from the uploaded Wiki version isn't optimal. The quality sometimes drops considerably between the thumb and uploaded full file size: For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintin_and_Alph-Art and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Talon are noticable. Maybe one has to be sitting in dim light and have an LCD with a 800:1 contrast ratio or greater for this to be noticable? One solution, it was pointed out to me, is to upload the photo at the resolution it will display. But that works only if there's some fixed standard so the photo isn't resized later.

Thoughts? Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 16:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think such things are debated at Wikipedia_talk:Images, but policy differs between own and copyrighted media. You are right in that no resize tampering will have maximum clarity result, so a custom upload is ideal. Since especially non-free fairuse images don't (or extremely rarely) exceed a width of 300px, that's a reasonable starting point. 230px is frequently used (for upright images) in comics articles, certainly in creator articles as that width echoes the infobox and balances the layout. Restraint is also an issue since the day when Wikipedians for an all fairuse-free-wikipedia revolutionize, may draw near, and provocation is unnecessary.. I'd be interested to know if you make deeper discoveries about this. MURGH ^disc. 18:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You read my mind again. Is that considered fair use? Lol.

300px seems to be a width figure that's mentioned frequently in other discussions about image size. But as might be guessed, there's more to it. This article is worthwhile:

Section "A rational change" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_26#Need_guidance_on_WP:NFCC.233b

An aspect of this rather interesting issue is what the preference of the author/illustrator/publisher would be. Do they frequently complain, one wonders, or the discussion in the above article largely theoretical? An artist for a non-comic book cover -- who had no other representation in the published work -- might feel that an 800 x 1000px photo of their precious cover painting violated their rights. But in most other situations one would think the owners would want as big a picture as possible. It presents them at their best...it's free advertising. I contributed to a comics magazine in college, and I am close friends with the editor. If somebody wanted to put an 800 x 1000px image of the cover of our publication in Wiki...? Excellent! We would just want to be sure the photo was professional quality. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 18:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'd imagine the publishing world has a wide variety of differing POVs on this, as there is, no doubt, in the WP community. I personally think the "loan" of fair use images ought to be no more or less than what is appropriate for an encyclopedic illustration, equally mindful of those that oppose as those who really welcome the exposure. Often used to justifiy fair use is that an image is "web resolution quality, of lower resolution than the original, -copies will be of inferior quality". Certainly fair enough, but at the same time not reduce to the point of defacing the represented work, obviously in nobody's interest. For instance, that Achille Talon image you thankfully replaced was of such poor quality that it hurt the eyes. The idea is to provide illustration with an aim to educate, so, as long as it's still possible, I only try going by common sense. MURGH ^disc. 21:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Stub type proposal

I'm sorry that the Franco-Belgian proposal ended as a withdrawn request, though I certainly understand why. The idea of a Euro-comics-creator-stub (as originally suggested) is still a viable one, though, and is likely to be created at some point, probably in the near future. Hopefully that will make it at least somewhat easier to keep track of the stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The Euro covers it, and ideally stubhood is very temporary condition. Cheers, MURGH ^disc. 23:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. It looks like Peg must have misunderstood you. I'll re-propose it - with any luck it shouldn't cause any problems with it just being for a Euro type. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barks

Why do you insist on having that silly flag there? According to all the reasons described in WP:MOSFLAG there is no reason to have a flag. People really can read the words United States instead of seeing also a pretty picture. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics has no separate manual of style. At least not one I could find on the project page. Garion96 (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

On account of a feature consistent in some 700 articles, as I wrote. Yes I'll insist on the established practice being the same for all versus one wikipedian's random displeasure, but I'd certainly bow to a consensus that decides a bot do the same to all articles project-wide. You're welcome to argue this at the WP:CMCtalk (and may find agreement for all I know) but just deleting one flag and then moving on I find a bit disrespectful to those that tend the template. MURGH ^disc. 19:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There are too many difficulties with flag icons. See this edit. Perfectly correct, utterly stupid. There was no manual of style section about them when slowly flags were added. Now, after long discussion there is a manual of style about flags, so slowly they will disappear. I see no disrespect at all if I remove some. (btw, I just remove them from articles I read). Especially if there is no mention of them on the wikiproject page or on the template itself stating the project wants to go against a manual of style. Garion96 (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but in this respect it applies to vandalism on every level. If Barks' flag is your next flagcruft target, taking it though WP:CMC is the way to go, because I am not the only one that will react to a deviation of established style affecting that many articles. Take a pick from here and look for yourself how deep this goes. I've invoked the guideline WP:FLAG myself, in cases of overuse and misuse, but I think these infoboxes are pretty modest. MURGH ^disc. 20:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you but respect your opinion. But I don't respect the word vandalism in this regard. That's complete nonsense, on every level. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Vandalism to get a better understanding what vandalism is. Garion96 (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?, I thought we were being civil here. I would describe changing Romy Schneider's little flagicon to a nazi flag vandalism, and am grossly surpised an admin would claim any different. I'll have to assume misunderstanding but please don't be so jumpy. MURGH ^disc. 20:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

reading again I see I wasn't as clear as I thought, so I am sorry about that. MURGH ^disc. 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. Complete misunderstanding there. I thought you meant my removal of the Barks flag was vandalism. My apologies. Garion96 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad. No I'm convinced in your good faith and the guideline could be right about nationalism, even at this discrete level, but that template's maintainance represents a lot of people's work, so if it is to be flag-free it should be done right. MURGH ^disc. 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I am glad I made another convert. :) Even without a bot removing all the flags, I do think (hope) they slowly will disappear since I am not the only one removing them from infoboxes. I am glad it is gone from the Carl Barks article though, my favourite comics artist. I hope some day to really improve that article, have enough sources here at home but for some reason never have the time/energy to do so. Garion96 (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I expect it's pleasing to make converts ;-) And I think you're probably right, they might hopefully become obsolete, since there is something very simple, conflict-evading by just removing them from the mix.

Good luck having a crack at Barks when the time is right. MURGH ^disc. 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will Eisner

You're edit warring over whether a flag is left or right justified at the above page. I've created a section on the talk page for a discussion regarding the issue. In the meantime, if you are at a loss for other things to do, can I suggest Category:All pages needing cleanup? Happy editing. Steve block Talk 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the word of caution, but I wasn't about to go thirds on it. I do have a section at ComicsTalk related to the issue, and it would be nice to have a project-wide stated understanding towards the handling of the issue. MURGH ^disc. 19:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I just noticed the dispute and wanted to nip it in the bud just in case. It's best to treat all parties as equal for fairness. I hadn't realised the discussion at the comicsproj was related. I agree that there needs to be a consensus of some sorts. Steve block Talk 20:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow Kid

My mistake, I somehow thought I was seeing quotations marks, sorry about that. All the best to you! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up, it was a bit mysterious :^) MURGH ^disc. 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What??????

Why did you delete the Image I posted on the page "cartoon" that looks like the one listed below????????????????!!!!

Dear madam, I haven't deleted anything, but I have removed your cartoon dog from the current version of Cartoon. It doesn't seem like you've been contributing to wikipedia for very long, but I'm sure you can agree that it's OK to take a moment and get familiar with the project and the community before jumping into deep water. You may have noticed that none of the other contributors have put in their own cartoons on that page, and there are several reasons for that. One is that people are getting together on Wikipedia to try to make something like an Encyclopedia. When contributing to articles, contributors go by a few understood principles, and try to be conscious of a few things to avoid, so the process ideally will feel like teamwork. One excellent aspect of Wikipedia, and this will one day make it into an amazing resource, is that it collects free information and can easily point a user to the actual source, which makes Wikipedia a good, trustworthy tool, but part of that deal is that we avoid putting in our own ideas and always put Wikipedia's intersts ahead of our own. So I hope you can look at it objectively, and agree that for those who want to look up "Cartoon" it might be more useful to see a work considered historically significant, than something self-made.

Also, I would recommend that you take a little time to look at how edits are made in the Manual of Style, so there is less of a chance that people like me rush in to change or remove it. Good luck. MURGH ^disc. 03:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaston Lagaffe: in-universe?

Hi Murgh, I just removed the "fiction" parameter from {{comicsproj}} on the talk page of Gaston Lagaffe. I see that you recently updated the parameters of the template on this talk page as well, but didn't change this parameter. If you think the article is still too in-universe, that's fine, but I would recommend using {{in-universe}} on the article itself to indicate this. Cheers, GentlemanGhost 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. No, I didn't remove that parameter (I don't relate to that concern and Imagine whoever put it there did so when GL looked a bit different) maybe because I felt whoever placed it there would want to have a say. On a bolder day I might have cut it too, but thanks for informing me, and the advice. Cheers. MURGH ^disc. 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you'd consider letting me nominate you for adminship, as I think you're experienced enough. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. I think I'm only part sufficiently experienced and not motivated enough. For the responsibility that comes with the mop I may not be around enough in the coming months, and I'm weary of the haul that I feel I'd have to take a part in. I would like to contribute with adminship one day, I'm fairly sure, but it wouldn't be right to commit to it right now. But thanks a lot though for suggesting it. MURGH ^disc. 22:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue VII - December 8th, 2007

[edit] Jean-Louis Triaud

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look closely at the template you posted stating "makes no assertion of notability", and then 2 WP:RS on the stub asserting notability. MURGH ^disc. 15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bordeaux second wine article

Hey Murgh, I really think the work you are doing on the Bordeaux wine articles is really awesome and you certainly seem to know you stuff. That's why I want to ask you about what you think about having an article on the Second wines of the Bordeaux chateau. I've been tinkering with the idea for a while but had a hard time finding enough reliable sources to make a worthwhile article. I can find sources that define what a second wine is but I think a really good article on the subject would be more a list noting things like Bahans Haut-Brion is the the second wine of Haut-Brion, De Marbuzet is Cos d'Estournel, La Croix is Ducru-Beaucaillou, etc. What do you think? Is there enough there that would warrant an article? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 14:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pleasant feedback :) I think a Second wines article would be very interesting (and limited to Bordeaux makes sense considering the limitatons in the tradition, maybe the article title should contain that? Or what makes historical sense?) If I understand you right, you're thinking about a full article with an embedded list of second wines? I'm sure there are considerable RS for it, but I'm guessing it's very scattered. None of my books have anything nice and compact on it, but I sometimes come over good sources, so yes, that definately seems like an article I'd like to contribute to. MURGH ^disc. 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Bordeaux certainly is the most prominent example of second wines though some high end California wineries also have a second or third "label". Tuscany also has a fair share but it along the lines of the top end wines being Brunello di Montalcino and the "second wine" being classified lower as Rosso di Montalcino. It may be worthwhile to have the main focus being on the Bordeaux second wines but have a section on "Second wines in other regions" or something. While I've been able to identify a few second wines by word of mouth and exploring, unfortunately that wouldn't qualify as a reliable source for an article. :p Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so there's a chance there would eventually come a split to a "List of second wines", but I'd think the big brands with 8-12 sublabels should be kept out ;) I know Mouton Cadet started out as a second in 31 but certainly couldn't be considered one now. I'll dig some into it, because I don't know the historical evolution of it and my books don't tend to elaborate, but it would be good to have a source that touches on the phenomena broadly. As far as spot referencing, I'd consider thewinedoctor.com RSworthy, so a specified search gives something to work with. MURGH ^disc. 16:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-Winos invitation

Hey Murgh! Would you be interested in participating in our Wiki-Winos segment for an upcoming addition of Wine Project Newsletter? If you are interested take a look over the interview questions and post any replies to the to the answer page. If you have any questions, just let me know. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 :) Thanks, not this time though. Maybe when I'm a bit more senior. MURGH ^disc. 09:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem but it is more of "get to know you" type deal so don't fret about seniority. The offer will always be open whenever you feel like it. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 19 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article second wine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

[edit] WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue VIII - December 22nd, 2007

[edit] RfA Thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 44 support, 4 oppose, and 3 neutral. I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools (and don't worry, I'll be careful).

  jj137 ^♠ 01:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 31 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mas de Daumas Gassac, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 5 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Château Pavie-Macquin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

[edit] WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue IX - January 7th, 2008

[edit] Orphaning images

FYI, when a non-free image is orphaned, it is better to tag it with {{subst:orfud}} rather than merely blanking the page. By tagging it with {{subst:orfud}}, but leaving everything else intact, you (1) automatically queue it for deletion and (2) allow for it to be easily reused should there be a need. --B (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. MURGH ^disc. 12:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for reverting Talk:Venus

Though I'm not sure what to do about creationists on Wikipedia. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just wasting my time trying to counter their arguments, but I think it's best for anyone reading the discussion who might be "on the fence" as regards this lunatic argument to see both sides. Serendi^podous 12:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right, I certainly haven't any inclination to engage in any debate about that ;) .. But as far as personal attacks on talk pages, the policy is pretty clear about reverting on sight so I'll stick to that. MURGH ^disc. 14:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick request

In the future, if you could use {{Film}} instead of {{FilmsWikiProject}}, I'd be very grateful. Although the latter one automatically redirects to the former, it has been deprecated, and we're trying to phase out its usage as task force tagging slowly occurs over the next year or so. Knowing that it's not being added to new articles would put me greatly at ease. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. MURGH ^disc. 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue X - January 31st, 2008

[edit] Pics of Lascombes Sr & Jr

Hi Murgh, I just noticed that you had posted Image:Lascombes-grand & second.JPG as an illustration of Second wine. Some time ago, I was thinking about a similar illustration - first and second wine next to each other - and I realised that the only pair where I had a bottle of both was... Château Lascombes! But I soon realised I only had the 1982 and 1983 of the Grand Vin (which I believe have changed label design somewhat since then) and 2003 of the Second Vin, so I didn't do this picture, since I thought it would look strange with such an old wine next to a younger wine. So you can imagine what a laugh I had when I saw your image! :-) Perhaps I should bring one of the youngsters of the 1980s and we can compare with the 1929, and see if it's still drinkable?
On another note, I think it would be better if you posted your pictures on Commons. That way they're available for all language versions, and they (can) get categorized with all the other wine-related pictures already there. Tomas e (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, looking strange didn't stop me! :) The senior is a mystery, some say it's long spoiled and others (though not many) it's finally reaching its prime. Soon I need to decide if it's to be experienced in some ceremonious way or I take some ancients the long trip for recorking.

I'm sure you're right about Commons, I wasn't sure if the licensing was really appropriate for that, but see that's what is usually done. I don't suppose a bot is going to offer to do it for me, but that kind of transwiki thing is quickly done I guess. MURGH ^disc. 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but the upload option "from another Wikimedia project" perhaps saves you a little time, if it recycles comments - I haven't really tested. Tomas e (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked a little into it. There are currently ASCII naming problems (!) so all my picky château have to become chateau, and it looks like they all need to be uploaded locally imbetween, I couldn't see any "direct" lazyman options, but it doesn't seem like too much work.. MURGH ^disc. 09:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ASCII??? I've never noticed that with Commons! There are e.g. Image:Blaufränkisch.jpg and Image:Château Margaux.jpg without any problems, so I would have guessed your circumflexes would survive... Tomas e (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? This Move-to-commons assistant says "most non-ASCII characters in filenames will be "ASCIIfied". Some asian characters will break altogether. Fix is on the to-do list" but if this just isn't true I'll be glad to ignore it. Of course! I misunderstood, this is a bug in this guy's script and has nothing to do with Commons.. duh. Good news then. MURGH ^disc. 15:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I had them done. Correctly I hope. Good to have them properly placed before the next AOC pic batch. MURGH ^disc. 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems quite OK to me. Few people who are used to categorizing enwiki articles are likely to make "errors" on Commons. But just as here, parts of the category structure leaves some things to be desired. (I've put in a little gnome work on wine-related images, but more remains.) Among problems more commonly found in Commons than in enwiki> overcrowding of "root" categories (e.g. putting everything in "Wine") and no use of categories as all is another. It seems that some people upload images for articles they're working on and just see it as a "dumping place" for images and think it's enough that they know the image's file name. Tomas e (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw what you mean. I'm sure an inspired soul could devote a lot of time to sort (and then maintain) a good category system. MURGH ^disc. 12:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New French AOC articles

Hey Murgh, I noticed in your sandbox that you have a lot of nifty new French AOC articles in the works. When you transfer a few of them over to mainspace, let me know. There is a lot of good potential DYK material in there. Or you can feel free to nominate them as well. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Agne, thanks for noticing. It's a *little* chaotic there ATM (getting the crude stuff over with first), but when I feel the info distribution is logical and have put it into somewhat working sentences I'd love your help with making it worthwhile for DYK nom. I'll certainly let you know when I transfer. MURGH ^disc. 03:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New category in Wikimedia Commons

Hi, I go here per the instructions over at Commons. I'd just like to draw your attention to the newly created commons:Category:Wine labels which I created to take a dent out of the overcrowding of the commons:Category:Wine bottles (especially when taken together with commons:Category:Winebottles). My intention was that full-bottle images could go into the "old" category while closeups of the labels could go into the new one. And you've probably been the most prolific uploader of such images recently. A lot of old Bx, by the way! Tomas e (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC) (commons:User:Tomas er)

Allright. That makes sense. I shall populate it :^) MURGH ^disc. 17:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 10 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Peppercorn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

[edit] DYK congratulations!

On 12 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Château Lascombes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

hurrah for that! MURGH ^disc. 14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Wine Advocate

On 14 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Wine Advocate, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

[edit] Château Cantemerle

On 17 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Château Cantemerle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

[edit] Haut-Médoc (AOC)

On 20 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Haut-Médoc (AOC), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

[edit] Médoc

Hello Murgh, there seems to be some confusion about the AOC Médoc in relation to AOC Haut-Médoc. The AOC Médoc only covers what once was called Bas-Médoc, i.e., the less notable northern part of the Médoc peninsula, but which apparently didn't want to be called "lower...". Thus, Haut-Médoc is not an appellation within AOC Médoc as you wrote in the H-M article. The only AOC which covers the entire Médoc peninsula is AOC Bordeaux (and the other AOCs which follow the same border). To cover the entire area of what is colloquially called Médoc you have to consider AOC Haut-Médoc + AOC Médoc, which do not overlap. If you have the World Atlas of Wine, check their overview map of Bordeaux! I have the second-latest edition (2001, reprinted in 2005), in that one it's on p. 83. Perhaps we need to explain this difference between Médoc (general geographic term and colloquial term for a subregion of Bordeaux) and AOC Médoc clearer in a some of the article? Since you're engaged in editing anything Bordelais with gusto, you're probably the right person to include such pedagogical comments where they belong... Tomas e (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you engage, but I'm pretty confident about the way I interpreted the sources. An estate may be located in the Haut-Médoc zone (or Margaux for that matter), and not meet the H-M directives -but the Médoc directives (such as a slightly more forgiving base yield) and therefore cling on to the Médoc declaration without resorting to go Bordeaux generic. INAO's Médoc text [6] and medoc.com [7] give me the strong impression that Médoc AOC does cover the entire peninsula, and overlaps H-M and the other communals. A problem seems to be many sources simplify this and just describe Bas-Médoc which is afer all the practical truth. I'm all for working to reach the same conclusion and further tweaking the explanation to be as good as possible, but it isn't easy stuff ;-)

My WAoW is from 1971 unfortunately, so I wouldn't count on pages corresponding. MURGH ^disc. 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right - I read the sources you reference in the same way you do! Funny, because the WAoW clearly depicts the AOC Médoc as an area distinct from AOC Haut-Médoc; they are separatley coloured areas in difference from the AOC Bordeaux area which is shown as a wider outline, which is the graphical style WAoW usually uses for overlapping areas. In the text they first tell about Margaux and Pauillac being referred to as Médoc wine and to on to tell "But the appellation Médoc is both more limited and less prestigious."! The same story is told in Munskänkarnas educational material, where I probably picked it up. I'm not surprised that Munskänkarna is wrong now and then, but I am surprised in noting errors in a "core subject" with Hugh & Jancis! If you're going to be wrong, it's good to have good company! :-) Tomas e (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know unless there is an alibi for keeping it simple, my pre-Jancis WAoW does that a bit. (they both have books that are considerably more detailed, yes? I don't own any yet..) Maybe in light of all practical application, that crossovers never happen and sheer impossibility of describing it elegantly..?

Munskänkarna seems like good company too! :^D MURGH ^disc. 23:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for the heart-warming edit summaries :) MURGH ^disc. 23:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue XI - February 21st, 2008

[edit] Alexis Lichine's classification of Bordeaux wine

Very interesting reading! As a left bank fan (those days I'm not a Riesling fanatic to the exclusion of everything else, that is), who tends to appreciate Margaux the most, I've noticed that the 1855 classification doesn't say everything. While I've read that Parker has opined something like "ditch the whole thing", I wasn't aware that such a comprehensive attempt at reclassification had been made. Of course, today the probability of achieving a reclassification of Médoc must be much lower than 40-something years ago, considering that the price spread just seems to have increased. Anyway, this article proves just how much interesting wine material that can be added to our 'pedia. Tomas e (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Yes sometimes the sources reveal concise, fascinating stories. Given the weirdness of such an old system staying so influential it's maybe not so strange that there have been dramatic details along the way. Personally I wouldn't mind at some point during my lifetime, to see it evolve into a more consumer-involved system of 'sports-like' leagues where all parties interested would get a chance to opine and affect in some small way who gets to be promoted, demoted and called 'champion', but how likely is that? ;^) MURGH ^disc. 06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember Neal Martin of Wine Journal (later swallowed by eRP) in his rather wacko style writing something like "since nothing can possibly have changed since 1855 - no snickering in the back, please!". To be quite honest, it's difficult to claim that a classification which allows the châteaux to swap land with each other within the appellation without the 1st-5th Cru classification being affected, actually is based on terroir. Tomas e (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's a tough sell, and yet still written in stone; have to like the "snickering in the back" comment. Of course what there is a case for, is the plain reality of money, of big earners having the better resources to produce the better product. But it would be nice to see the element of common sense introduced in one's lifetime. MURGH ^disc. 13:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations on your DYK!

On 24 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Château Pape Clément, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

[edit] Alexis Lichine's classification of Bordeaux wine DYK

On 25 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexis Lichine's classification of Bordeaux wine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

[edit] On a related note ...

On 7 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cocks & Féret, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

[edit] Henri Enjalbert

On 25 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henri Enjalbert, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

[edit] The 2005s are coming!

I'm so excited! It's like Christmas. :) I'm (hopefully) getting some petite chateauxs in next week. Did you get any futures before the prices went bonkers? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can imagine you are if you beat the bonkers phase, good luck with those. No, I didn't get in on that.. life loving the wine is quite different for us who are currently under the protective umbrella of Vinmonopolet. It's like trusting Big Brother. MURGH ^disc. 10:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my! That is no fun at all. I was able to get a few bottles for personals use (mostly Cru Bourgeois such as Chasse-Spleen, one of my personal favs). My one "score" was a Cos d'Estournel which I will probably spend at least the next 10 years in an epic internal battle about when do I open it. :p One wine that I would love to get, but alas is too expensive and too limited, is the Haut-Brion Blanc which is supposed to be the top white wine of the entire vintage. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, limited fun indeed. I envy you that can play this game, at least as long as I'm living in this country. From my perspective, with Chasse-Spleen and other bargain Bourgeoises, it seems like several potential scores. I endeavour to sample the Haut-Brion Blanc someday too, but the wish list is long. Who among the 05s did not have a reportedly great year? For us up in the world's corner, the best bet is saving our money for summer visits to France, and then there is no dilemma about holding out for 10 years. MURGH ^disc. 22:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

While the US distribution system is FAR from perfect, reading more about the Vinmonopolet does make it seem pretty serviceable. As for 05, what really excites me is the broad quality across the board-Right bank, left bank, Entre-deux-mers as well as white, red and sweet wines. That means that in addition to the great bargain crus, the lower end "Mass market" wines like Mouton-Cadet, Mouiex, etc, will also be of relative higher quality than the norm. My hope is that those entry level wines will introduce more novice drinkers to the immense potential of Bordeaux and potentially be an eye opening experience. I remember a similar "awakening" happening (at least here in the States) in 82 and I would love to see a repeat with the 05's. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes you won't catch me defending the monopoly, in fact I am considering devoting some sweat to join in the fight against it.. In the US the potential spectre (and consumer joy) is vastly wider, but I guess this is usually given. A new wine (Bdx and all) awakening would be very welcome, especially here in the land of beer-into-oblivion. MURGH ^disc. 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanations on a sentence

Excuse me, I need an help: I am not American and I need to know the explanation of a sentence. Would u be so kind to translate it to me? The sentence is what the hizzle for shizzle? Thank u if u wanna help me--89.96.198.38 (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not US either, but I'm guessing it is a way of expressing surprise, see -izzle if that helps any. Sorry I can't be more helpful.. MURGH ^disc. 12:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)