User talk:AllyD/Archive2

George Russells

Sorry if I acted too hastily in making the move to a disambiguation page. The reason I did so was because I was searching for the "AE" George Russell and ended up on someone's page that I wasn't looking for and had to find the disambig page then choose the appropriate article, when it seemed to me this was backwards . . . I should have landed on the disambig page first. I am planning to update the links. You can remove the not to be confused with" links if you don't approve. NoVomit (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Ra

Lol, I don't think they have birth certificates on Saturn, but I hear what you're saying. Happy editing! Spinach Monster (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fortean writers

I've responded to your remarks in the CFD for Category:Fortean writers. Cgingold (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic claimants

There seems to be support for changing the name to something, but we are still going around and around because everyone wants their formulation. I don't suppose you could support "psychic claimants" as originally proposed in the interest of compromise and consensus. It was carefully chosen, and I have responded to all the objections given. "Purported" is negative. While I personally think it should be categorized straight up under "scams", I am trying to be responsible here. I have at least some appropriate background in the field of critical thinking so I have given the subject thought. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider supporting the original proposal. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy categories

If I could direct your attention to WP:PHILO. Please note the navigation bar organizes the task forces such that we could reasonably expect that every "philosophy" article in WP would be covered by at least one task force. Ideally, each article should be within at least one task force for subject area, one for major tradition, one for period. This set up had been discussed at WT:PHIL a long time ago. Since it was set up, it has proven to be a good system of organization.

The article space categories do not mirror this organizational system perfectly. In fact, articles in the philosophy department need a lot of help generally. I am now doing my part by looking at the categories. Obviously, my goal has been to put them into a category structure similar to the task force structure.

I think there has already been an enormous amount of planning, thought, and consideration by many people to make the task force structure possible. I think we can reasonably conclude that it can serve as a model for organizing the article space categories. Furthermore, the proposal was posted at WT:PHILO explicitly for half a month. If anyone had objected we would have heard something by now already either in response to the task force set up or the latest proposal consistent with it.

Please cooperate with the proposal in consideration of the project. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Music of Scotland and Andrew Macpherson?

Nope, 'fraid not! I've no objection to just deleting it. It's possibly a "vanity" edit - someone with the same name adding it so they can brag to their mates down the pub!

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 21:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the latest edit - the one that added Gordon McPherson - and left it in place because he had an article. I don't know nearly enough about the subject to make a call on notability, however (my view of Music of Scotland doesn't stretch too much further than King Tut's or The Barras). As a layman McPherson does seem notable - he's allegedly head of composition at RSAMD, for example, but I'll defer to your judgement.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I'm wondering if the first edit was a mistake, and the editor intended to add "Gordon"? No matter, all good now. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ported from User Page

Thanks AllyD - though, not very welcoming to a new user. I only wanted to add on one fact here but it kept getting deleted by (in my opinion) over zealous editors. If you look at a lot of other information added by others, mine is no more irrelevant or superfluous than other facts. However, in future I will try and restain myself from updating the world to a musicians shoe size or informing what daily paper a politician reads etc - 20:18, 20 June 2009 Nakedlunch123

Kennaway and Scottish literature

I would suggest, reading other posts to your talk page, that your editing style is based on imposing your views inappropriately on the contributions of other people. Wikipedia is for everyone, not for everyone as long as they have your permission or agree with you. I disagree wih you. That is not a reason for you to remove my posts, especially as you clearly have no knowledge of Kennaway.

The paragraph in question relates to Scottish writers who have "displayed a new outwardness". Kennaway did exactly that. He left Scotland and worked in England. His themes sometimes relate explicitly to Scotland but more often to the world as a whole. That is a classic definition of "outwardness". He is also a more significant writer than any of those included in the paragraph or mentioned in your post on my talk page, with the possible exception of AJ Cronin, who in any case does not belong in "1950s to the present" but in the early 20th century, where I note that he is already referenced.

I have replaced and expanded the fully justified reference to him and will continue to do so. Insideintelligence (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kennaway and road deaths in Scotland

You are right that Kennaway did not die in a road accident in Scotland,. nor did I include that category. In fact I did not create this page at all, I added a single sentence to it and a few links. Why would it be deleted following the single sentence I added, when it has not been deleted since it was first created in March 2008!

I think you are in danger of abusing Wikipedia to impose a private agenda of your own. Insideintelligence (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your reply

I'm sorry to note that your style consists of imposing yourself on the contributions of other people and talking about putting notices on contributions. This is an approach that new users like me could find intimidating, as at least one other contributor to your talk page clearly has. I would suggest you moderate your style and your approach to one more appropriate to a democratic forum like Wikipedia, at which point any friendly or helpful intent you might have will have a chance to make itself felt... Insideintelligence (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello AllyD! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Bobby Wellins - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

Greater Glasgow conurbation - population > 2.3m - cited on the wikipedia article Greater Edinburgh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh#Metro_Area_.28Greater_Edinburgh.29) - population 900,000

Total - 3.2m which is more than 50% of 5.1m (2.55m)

Can't find an explicit reference but this effectively confirms it [1]

I'm just trying to improve the article. Even without an official reference, its well known and fairly obvious that most of Scotland's population lives in this area.

Also, yes in my judgment these cities are in the south of the country. However since that's not scientific I won't include the location.

Please discuss before reverting. My changes improve the article. Wikipedia is about a process of continual change and improvement.

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Haldane (diplomat)

As you say, there is not much information. However I have created a stub, in the hope that some one else will find the information to fill it out one day. My purpose in reverting your editor to preserve the link was that there were already two other red links to this format. I have in fact found some more detail [1]. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added more. I am not certain that the diplomat to Russia is the same man, but it is likely. I will leave you to see what more you can do: I probably will not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Yeah, you're right; it's the Musician Guide. There's no editorial policy on that site — we don't know who the writers are, what their cred is, if any, etc. — so it's by definition not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP flag in project banners

Hi AllyD! I noticed you removed "BLP" status from Talk:Crimson Jazz Trio. Somewhere in the course of discussion around WP Biography|musicians-work-group it was recommended (if not required) to mark band articles as BLP as long as at least one member ist still living (in order to prevent legal problems et. al). I am not sure if you are aware of that recommendation ... At least, band member Tim Landers ist not marked as not being alive anymore ... Best regards, BNutzer (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put the subject up on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#living.3Dyes_for_articles_about_musical_groups for clarification. BNutzer (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I replied to BNutzer's question today (pointing to the discussion he was looking for), and it looks like his answer may not have been right. When putting a note on his talk page, I also noticed your discussion with him. Sorry to re-open the issue after both of you thought it was resolved. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Some suggestions

Thanks for the feedback! FWIW I like the Penguin Guide: I used to think it was more "stuffy" and slanted toward the avant-garde (though Jimmy Smith is now in the Core Collection). But it is now my preferred resource; Allmusic got to a point where it seemed like the majority of everything I'd look up there had a glowing review/rating and I kind of gave up on taking it seriously. Just my $0.02. I do have the 1st edition of the Allmusic Guide to Jazz, which I've always liked, though some of the reviews and ratings differ in the online version. I've also never cared for what I believe is their over-categorization of sub-generes (mainly the online version). My understanding is that AMG began as some kind of database (of their own design, as opposed to using Oracle etc.), and I figured their categories were some by-product of this. I strongly suspect that their categorization scheme has been mirrored on Wikipedia (as I just haven't seen some genres mentioned anywhere else; e.g. see these comments) leading to some over-categorization on our part.

  • Re: the Hot 5 & 7 recordings, I've consolidated all the individual JSP discs up on the same row with the box set, and I did the same with the individual Columbia discs: see "Notes" column. I went ahead and did this with the 1946-47 recordings, as well.
  • Bird: The Complete Charlie Parker on Verve refers to a 10-CD set, which Penguin says is now deleted: maybe that's why they went with the single-disc.
  • Re: the Art Ensemble, none of their albums even got four stars, much less "Core" or "Crown" listings (best showings were Fanfare for the Warriors and Urban Bushmen, each with "3/3 stars(1/1 stars)".

Thanx again, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

There's a Wikipedia administrative comment at the beginning of the Terry Silverlight article that's of concern, and this is a request to have it removed.

Time, care and effort has gone into making sure this article is written in a neutral, factual manner with reliable and significant third party references and citations. Every word was carefully examined to be sure nothing could be construed as promotional, superlative, or that could otherwise be construed as non-encyclopedic in nature, and follows carefully as possible the guidelines and standards of Wikipedia. At this point after much article editing, the attached comment no longer seems relevant.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjwihjs (talk • contribs) 00:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User_talk:Fjwihjs#Re_Talkpage_comment_and_Terry_Silverlight_article. AllyD (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for replying, and for your time and attention to my query. I also appreciate your observations during the editing process of the article, which helped Wikify it as much as possible. I would like to follow your suggestion to add that comment on the article's discussion page. I'm assuming you mean here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terry_Silverlight. If so, it looks like I can't add anything to that page. It says: "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page." The article's "talk page" leads to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terry_Silverlight which has no talk area, and the "the discussion" link leads back to the discussion address pasted above. I'm not sure what to do. I definitely want to leave the comment you suggested, but I'm not sure where. Could you please tell me if it's alright to go ahead and leave the comment on the "the discussion" page even though it says I shouldn't, or if there's somewhere else you have in mind, could you please forward the link. Thanks again for your help and courtesy. It's been an education! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjwihjs (talk • contribs) 17:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has been added to talk page

In my previous communication, I apologize for asking where to enter the comment you suggested. I think I figured out how to access the talk area of the page you were referring to. I'm still learning how to navigate around Wikipedia. Hopefully, what I wrote and where I placed it is what you had in mind. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjwihjs (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elina Duni

Made this edit so that your reference could show. Hope it's ok with you. --Sulmues (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think she is notable, her father Spiro Duni, wasn't though and I sent him to AfD, and he didn't survive. She, instead IMO is notable, but Jazz and I are just two opposite worlds, it's just that she gives some hits in google. --Sulmues (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New encyclopedism

This probably needs to be discussed at WP:AfD. I removed the prod and prod2. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicon

Hello AllyD, You reverted my edit, which I inserted a flagicon. I was not aware of the restrictions. I encountered one article though which has the flagicon.Frank Colon Then I thought, I could do the same. Good that I learned something. Thank you.Fusion is the future (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surrealist films

I have started a subpage with lists of films I am proposing for the two categories. Should the discussion be moved there? The majority of responses to my proposal were positive, with only Moni3 objecting. Can we now consider the matter closed? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Tags

The next time you vandalize Wikipedia as you did Julio Cesar Badillo, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Goodfaith19 (talk) 17:055, 15 October 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

  • A pity the user didn't put as much energy into actually addressing the notices by referencing the biography rather that removing tags from it and then splattering BLP notices onto pages about buildings and records. AllyD (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music To Picture

Hello AllyD
A page was created entitled Music To Picture, and it is being considered for deletion by two administrators. I can partially see their point in that not much has been written about this album, even though the few references listed are legit and noteworthy. ASCAP is one of the three leading performance rights organizations and the link provided lists many songs Terry Silverlight has written that have been aired in TV and film. The other references listed are equally as reliable with references to Terry Silverlight's notable work. Whether this page is deleted or not isn't a major issue. The main concern is that they are implying a possible deletion of the main Terry Silverlight page. That I find unreasonable and will do whatever possible to dispute that. It's a concern that these two administrators are referring to the deletion warning that still exists on the Terry Silverlight discussion page. The fact is, that warning was issued early on in the article's life, and since that point everything needing improvement has been corrected. So, the warning at this point is completely inapplicable. Had the administrators been more thorough, they would have followed the edit history of the page and found that out for themselves. They're going back in time about something that no longer is a problem with that article. Before a response is made to the Music To Picture talk page, or any significant action is taken, I was hoping to get your advice how to proceed. Would you advise responding to them, or just let it go at this point? I'd like to prevent an issue with a new deletion for Terry Silverlight, so do you think it's best to step in now, or wait.
Thank you for your Wikipedia expertise.
Fjwihjs (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Scottish contribution to Halloween

New user and found your name on Scotland WikiProject. The Halloween page is being revamped and it needs input from Scottish users on discussion as its too US centric right now. Getting more Scots input where Halloween was first celebrated, and guising, would give a balanced global overview of the holiday and its customs.ColinBurchill (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ally, anyone able to assist on Halloween discussion? A recent U.S. user stated to another user; "You've been making various assertions about the nature and origin of Halloween, but here you say you are not clear on the "role the Scots play in Halloween"? An understanding of the formation of the idea of Halloween in Scotland is necessary to understand what it became in the USA". Scotland has played a huge part in the history of Halloween and it needs Scottish contributors to give a true overview of it. Can you help please?, i've already posted on Scotland Wiki Project for assistance.ColinBurchill (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Maalouf

Well done for getting stuck into Ibrahim Maalouf! I had a bit of a sinking feeling when the publicity person, or whoever, added all that stuff and wiped out much of what had gone before, but I couldn't quite face it myself. Thank you taking it on and sorting it out a bit. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be honest, I'm still not sure I did the right thing in adjusting forward from the IP/publicist's edit stomp, rather than reverting them back off. AllyD (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's tricky but actually yes, I think you did - especially with the trouble you and the other editor took to fix things up afterwards. I was a bit despairing when I saw what the IP had done, and did consider just reverting the lot, but then I suppose it would have been a bit WP:bitey, and not everything they did was actually bad - just a bit ignorant, in the purest non-pejorative sense, about what the encyclopaedia is and how it works. Given that they were only trying to improve the article - notwithstanding their unfortunate and somewhat COI-ish approach - we probably will end up with a better article in the end. I hope. Thanks again! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Black Jazz Records

If I had come across this, I would have (more likely) jettisoned the entire (uncited) third paragraph, along with the new addition; or (less likely) wrapped the third paragraph with {{Cn-span}} (and delete the new edit). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the edit. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lacan and M. Mannoni

Good points. I'm building Mannoni from Fr Wiki, but hope to get more material soon from Roudinesco (in translation!). When and if I do, I'll see if it integrates at all within the Lacan text, and hopefully remove the "See also" at the same time. Jacobisq (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

  1. ^ http://www.visitstirling.org/FeatureListTop.aspx?docid=6&nav1=6