|
User talk:DocKino/Archive 2
Punk rockI think the Damned should have been listed as one of the forerunners of punk along with The Sex Pistols and The Clash since they formed around the same time and had the first punk single and LP to be released in the UK and were the first UK punk band to tour the US Neutrality of Sound FilmsHello Kal! Please call me Mike. In response to your reverting my edits, I have specified at least three instances where a speculative, or opinionary comment was present in the article. It seems as if we have a conflict here, and I would prefer to discuss it, and possibly rather than start an edit war. The Dietrich comments on the image are entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia, and the mention of Jolson's popularity could perhaps use some re-wording. I hope you are willing to talk about this issue. (24.62.100.100 (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
Image discussion concerning NFCC 8Would you be able to weigh in here please? The image in question is a rather unimaginative morph of Raj Thackeray and Hitler. It is being used in the article ostensibly because it aids readers' understanding of the situation. I disagree and I cited NFCC 8 when I tagged it. I now note that there is a simmering dispute about NFCC 8 itself though the main import of both wordings remains the same. I noticed you in the recent edit history of NFCC and thought that you would like to weigh in here. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Sex PistolsNice work today on the page. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC) WP:FILMS QuestionnaireAs a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing! conservative/liberal/moderateThe problem I have with the statement in the United States article is that it is misleading. Yes more people identify as conservative than liberal, but there are so many moderates that lean liberal that if you were to just ask "are you conservative or liberal" , I think most people would say liberal. So if that is the case, someone reading this article could be mislead into thinking that the country is conservative as a whole, and I think if you look at this past election , this is clearly not true. Kate WinsletThanks for your efforts in cleaning up the awards section of the article. It's great. I've had all I could handle just preventing it from becoming even more than a mess. Kudos. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Punk barnstar Riverside-San BernardinoWell Its because they are both the Central City, Riverside may be larger, But San Bernardino is more important, so they sould both be named. Or why not just write in Inland Empire instead of Riverside that way thy will both take credit? (the Inland Empire (CA) is the name of the metro) House1090 (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
New image projectHi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC) AttitudeComments like these help no one. Like everyone else on the project, I'm a volunteer trying to make a positive impact on the place, and like everyone else on this project (including you), I'm not perfect. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Ralph BakshiThe article has been extensively researched. It's as complete and factually accurate as it could ever get. The "films" you mention are actually episodes of a television series, The Mighty Heroes. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC))
Holding SpotJungian reflections within the cinema: a psychological analysis of sci-fi and fantasy archetypes by James F. Iaccino Space and beyond: the frontier theme in science fiction by Gary Westfahl Star trek and sacred ground: explorations of Star trek, religion, and American culture by Jennifer E. Porter, Darcee L. McLaren Religions of Star Trek - Page 4 by Ross Shepard Kraemer, William Cassidy, Susan L. Schwartz Matters of gravity: special effects and supermen in the 20th century By Scott Bukatman
House FAcHi, I don't know if you keep FAcs on your watchlist (in which case this message would be redundant), but I have replied to your comments on the House FAc. It would be great if you could take another look. Thanks.--Music26/11 13:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
ReviewsHello, I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your thorough work in FAC. Are you new to the area? I don't recall seeing you around until a month or so ago. At any rate, welcome. We always need substantive and conscientious reviews. --Laser brain (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Featured article candidates Hello! I noticed that you've been reviewing nominations at Featured article candidates. Thank you for your help, and I hope you will continue to contribute! You may already be familiar with the FAC criteria by now, but in case you aren't, you can check out the Featured article criteria. Also, the following dispatches are useful for reviewing nominations:
The best way to learn is by doing, but here is a quick reference of the things to check for each nomination you review:
Thanks again for your help! I look forward to continuing to work with you at FAC, and if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me or anyone else at FAC. Now get to reviewing some noms! Dabomb87 (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Re: Tender MerciesThanks for the message, and yes, I do intend to renominate it as soon as I finish the Themes section. I've ordered some books that I think/hope will contribute to it, and I want to take one more look at the library for any good print sources I could use for the article. I've also responded to both of your comments on the talk page. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Jackie Robinson FACI'll take another look at the images tomorrow, but I'm more of a prose/MoS reviewer than an image expert. Therefore, I asked User:Jappalang if he could take a look at it. Will do the best I can, though. Please keep up your great work in these reviews. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC) BarrierSorry, the citation was linking to the wrong page. Whereas it should have piped to here, it ended up linking here by mistake. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC))
United StatesHey Cal! I am writing is to let you know that there will be no more United States edits from me!! DocKino: Please see Talk:United States. --Zeamays (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC) House TV.com referenceI'm pretty sure TV.com (as well as IMDb) is strongly discouraged as a reliable source since it allows users to submit information to the website (much like Wikipedia does). I'm pretty sure during featured article reviews references from those two sites are weeded out. So it's probably best to find a different reference for the new information you added. It's probably accurate information but I think a different reference needs to be found for it. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC) June 2009First of all, as you were giving me the 3RR warning, you reverted me for the 3rd time today, thus bringing yourself to the verge of violating it as well. I have already listed my explanation as for the grammatical correctness (or the lack thereof) of DCGeist's addition: the word combination what one scholar calls this is garbled and though not entirely incorrect, such phrases are better reworded for Wikipedia's aesthetic quality. Moreover, as I have been telling DCGeist from the beginning, this addition puts the unduly weight on the fact that one scholar and one scholar alone said these words, hence inadvertently promoting a non-wp:neutral, skeptical outlook on the subject matter of the quote by using wp:weasel words. Is there a good reason for you to insist on that version, other than siding with DCGeist? Did they email you asking for help? (By the way, this is one of the reasons I don't have an account.) After all, we are all here to improve articles with positive, good-faith contributions. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
RfC on Joseph Priestley lead image alignmentA RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC) ApologiesIt's becoming more and more clear that I was absolutely wrong in our disagreement on the House (TV series) page. Please accept my apologies for both my misunderstanding of policy (regarding WP:RS), and regarding the actual facts of the matter. Unitanode 22:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Metrication in the United StatesA disgusting comment has been placed on the Metrication in the United States talk page. Can you remove it? There are two principal reasons why the United States of North America has been unable to change to a sensible measurement system that 200 / 203 countries use.
1. The financial cost of such a change would probably cripple a weakening economy. ILuvAmerica (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC) ANI notificationSee [1]. I'd be happy to drop this if you'd just stop edit warring. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Government leadersAh, I see your point. I forgot the Vice President counted as leader of the Senate, so I didn't quite see the parallel there before. Sorry about that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Fritz the CatTwo sources print this figure, not just Variety. If you had actually looked at the article or looked at the edits before commenting, something you have never done (as evidenced by the fact that you originally wrote that you doubted that the article had been improved, and then removed the comment after seeing how much text was in the article), you would have noticed that your implication that Steve copyedited the text, and I reverted his edits, was entirely untrue - I even applied those edits about the gross to other articles - but I changed it after further research proved that I was right in the first place. By the way, one of the sources that added in that copyedit you refer to, Planet Cat, was clearly sourced from Wikipedia, right around 2005, and God knows where that figure came from (IMDb?). You want I should add information that is clearly incorrect back into the article? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC))
RollbackHi, I noticed you used rollback to undo this edit by User:Coolgrl1234. The edit seems to be a good-faith edit by a new user, so a personal note on the user's talk page, along with an explanatory edit summary during your reversion, would probably be less bitey than using rollback, which is intended for obvious vandalism. The fact that most of this editor's contributions seem to be constructive and all could be construed as good-faith makes this reversion using rollback even less appropriate. An explanatory edit summary and a personal note on the user's talk page would be much better. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC) August 2009
 {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC) DocKino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Jeff G., with whom I have no history prior to nine days ago (unless he has previously or otherwise operated under a different username), began his campaign of harassment against me with this July 30 edit: [2]. As you can see, this "last warning" tag Mr. G placed on my Talk page was unexplained, unreferenced, and not preceded by lower-level tags. The campaign resumed this evening with this edit: [3]. Mr. G's notice here appears to be unexceptional, but the context shows that it is not. The article in question is Pulp Fiction (film). I have a long history of productive contributions to the article; Mr. G has none. I was reverting a minutes-old, small, objectively erroneous edit by an anon. Indeed I did not provide a detailed edit summary--perfectly standard practice for reverting a minor anon edit, hardly meriting a warning on my Talk page from an entirely uninvolved editor (unless, of course, that editor is watching my actions, looking for an excuse to harass me). I reverted the addition to my Talk page, referring in edit summary to the action I was reverting as "vandalism"--which, given the circumstances and recent history, is exactly what it appeared to be to me. Mr. G then began a spree of warnings on my Talk page accusing me of "personal attacks" ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), which I reverted--ultimately using intemperate language, indeed, but only in the summaries for edits to my own Talk page. Beginning only after Mr. G had tagged my Talk page for the third time this evening, I also left two warnings against defamation on Mr. G's Talk page, which again seemed entirely appropriate given the circumstances. They were simple template warnings, with no additional language, let alone anything inappropriate. I cannot fathom why Mr. G has chosen to target me, but I respectfully suggest that I should be unblocked and that Mr. G should be warned against initiating contact with me in the future. Decline reason: Your edit summaries refer to the other editor as a "serial troll" and "mentally disturbed." Sorry, but you are going to have to sit out the block. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Please be reasonable as far as the U.S. article when you return from the block. NZ is NOT Australia even though Americans think the two are similar. The NZ and American governments are at odds (though not to the point of hostility). South Korea is considered a much closer political ally even if the people may be culturally different from many Americans. Also, George Washington did not work or live in the White House so saying all Presidents did is wrong information that may lower a child's grade if they are writing a paper based on WP. Let's work together to get articles better! User F203 (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Ralph Bakshi FACAll of your issues with the article have been clarified. Please strike your opposition. (22:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC))
The significant issues you have brought up have been resolved. No further work is needed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC))
NowCommons: File:WB 77-Sex Pistols promo (video) (crop).jpgFile:WB 77-Sex Pistols promo (video) (crop).jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:WB 77-Sex Pistols promo (video) (crop).jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:WB 77-Sex Pistols promo (video) (crop).jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC) David Fuchs againHi there. Wanted to let you know that David Fuchs again snuck in his version of the summary for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, complete with innocuous description and no discussion in the Talk page. Suggestions on what to do regarding this case of WP:OWN? YLee (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
RamonesHi, Let me begin by pointing out that I fully recognize and admire your immense contributions to the content of Ramones and that my extremely minor role completely pales to insignificance by comparison. Someone had incompletely nominated the article for WP:GA and seeing what a "small g" good article it is I thought it would be a shame to go unassessed. I had and have do desire to overstep my place in the articles history or development. If you want to address the review please do, if you would prefer discussing any changes—I can do that, or if you believe the article is fine as is and don't care if it is assessed then I'll walk away. I hate to not finish something that I've started but I'm not going to work on a futile cause either. Whatever you decide is fine by me, just let me know. J04n(talk page) 15:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Per lead?I'm curious. You removed the RS top ranking entry you had just added with an edit summary, "Sorry, per lead, give RS ranking just for those in top ten." WP:LEAD doesn't say anything about that, and how does WP:LEAD apply anyway? Your edit was not to a lead paragraph. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
ECs on The BeatlesPer the FAC review, I'm trying to cleanup the citations. It's maddening to try and do that while you are also editing. (Given you are an FAC reviewer, aren't you not supposed to be editing anyway? I don't really know those rules.) Can you lay off for awhile, or should I? I'd like to get this done, but the article gets almost constant editing and systematic changes to citations are much harder under those conditions. — John Cardinal (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Retraction requestedIn two edits on Talk:The Beatles ([9], [10]) you described me as incoherent, ignorant, and lazy, among other things. I am formally requesting that you retract those comments and strike them on the talk page. I don't appreciate being insulted and it's not appropriate for those uncivil remarks to stand, especially on the talk page for an article that I have invested many hours to help improve. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Award
Recent commentsThe latest edits show that Unfiltered isn't the only source being used. Several citations were added backing up information which is also stated in Unfiltered. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC))
AfD nomination of Jazz Mellor An editor has nominated the Jazz Mellor article for deletion. If you have any thoughts on this matter then please add your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazz Mellor. Thank-you Unknown Unknowns (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Independent/independentI was surprised to see "independent.co.uk" as the publisher name. I assumed that "independent.co.uk" was their Internet domain, but the actual publisher name would be different. I went to the site and saw that my assumption was wrong, but the page had the first "I" capitalized. I changed The Beatles to reflect what I found. In general, I think the name should match the way the publisher shows it on their site when rendering it in text, i.e., if there is a stylized graphic with different fonts and colors, etc., I'll ignore that if there is also a simple(r) text version. The text version is often available in the page footer, on an "about us" page, or on a legal info page. I didn't check "guardian.co.uk" before now, but it appears the domain is "guardian.co.uk", and they use that as a name on the site, but the publisher's name seems to be "Guardian News and Media Limited". Without doing a lot of research, the "work" (equivalent to the newspaper name) would be "guardian.co.uk" and the publisher would be "Guardian News and Media". Having said all that, I'm no expert on this stuff... — John Cardinal (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Canada-United States Relations linkThank you for pointing out that the link already existed in the same paragraph. My apologies for missing that, and I commend your ability to see and correct the egregious oversight that I made. Thank you for your assistance, and happy editing! Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Hi DocKino, it's Hunter Kahn. I don't know if you remember me, but you provided some feedback during my old FAC nomination for the Tender Mercies film entry. If you'll recall, the issues back then were a lack of a comprehensive "Themes" section and scholarly sources. I think your those issues are now resolved; I would have nominated it again long ago, but I got bogged down with some real-life matters, as well as the fact that it took me a particularly long time to track down one particular journal article I wanted. That being said, I think Tender Mercies is ready now and I've once again nominated it for FAC. I remember back in the previous nomination, you seemed to indicate you felt Tender Mercies was already very close to FA standards. Now that I've renominated it, I'm very much hoping you'll weigh in on the new FAC page. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Being true to the sources can be more important than consistency of presentation.Hello DocKino, Consistency is good, but often it is more important to be true to the sources. That's why I undid your edit to the article on the United States. When the CIA and the United Nations quote the area of the United States in square kilometres, the fact that they use the metric system is as notable as the fact that their figures do not agree. It is especially notable that the CIA, an American Government instrumentality, uses the metric system. In this case, converting these figures into square miles misrepresents the sources, just as it would misrepresent the sources to change the measures so that they agree with each other. Michael Glass (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Bakshi proposalCould you please enter your thoughts here? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
File source problem with File:WB 77-Sid Vicious promo.jpg Thanks for uploading File:WB 77-Sid Vicious promo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Tender Mercies questionHey, I saw your latest query at the Tender Mercies FAC. I am at work right now, but will address it when I get home. In the meantime, I had a question for you. As you probably saw, I added the audio clip of Duvall singing. Since actress Betty Buckley also did her own singing (and since her song "Over You" was nominated for an Oscar), do you think it would be worthwhile to include a brief audio clip of her singing "Over You" along with the Duvall clip? Or do you think having two would be a fair-use issue? Since it's two separate actors, and since the fact that both sand their own songs are addressed in the article, I thought it would be OK, but wanted your opinion before I added the clip... — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
Feedback requestI'd value your opinion about something. As you have a lot of experience as a FAC reviewer, and I've only managed to find time to review a handful of FACs so far, I think you are in a good position to judge the way I've handled my oppose at WP:Featured article candidates/Merry Xmas Everybody/archive1. This is not an attempt to solicit input to that FAC per se, just a request for feedback on how you think I've handled it, to help my personal development and effectiveness in future FACs. I don't like to oppose, and in fact this is the first time I've done so; I'm (perhaps needlessly) left questioning whether I've come down too hard on the nominator, and whether I need (heaven forbid) more practice at opposing, to develop greater diplomacy in interpreting and responding to nominators' comments. One of my objections (now stricken) concerned the suitability of a source and consequent assertions made in the article; after a counter-challenge, my objection was accepted and fixed, but my other objections continue to be challenged and the discussion seems to me to have deteriorated. As things stand, I doubt the value of making any further response, as side-issues appear to be dominating and risk clouding the principles of my stated objections. If it's possible for you to take a look and let me know, honestly, how you think I've handled it (and, if you want, any other FAC you're aware of that I've contributed to), I'd be very grateful. Note that in the FAC in question I've also joined in the discussion of at least one other reviewer's response (which I did after my oppose). If you'd prefer not to do this for any reason, no problem, just say no. Thanks! PL290 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Just wanted to say ...... that I think you're doing a great job at The Kinks FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Penguin dictionary/British EnglishSo if it's not true that British English demands "-ise" for certain words like maximize (in American English), is that why the Cambridge dictionary says "UK usually ___ise" for the words in question that I changed on The Beatles article? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC) The Beatles and UK-English variantThe Oxford English Dictionary includes a lot of variant spellings, but generally British English utilises the "s" rather than the "z". Moreso, the MoS denotes that subjects peculiarly or generally related to one of the English speaking cultures should use the typical word and grammatical structures of that language. I would suggest that you self revert, since Brits can generally be trusted to know how things are commonly spelled in their native language. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Talkback notice You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. - I.M.S. (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Presley articleMany thanks to you (and PL290) for your continuing input. Much needed and overdue. Rikstar409 08:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Just got back home and had a look at the Presley article. You have no idea how pleased I was to view your recent contributions to this article. Hope the two of you will stick around for awhile.--Jaye9 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC) 000 deadIf you really do not believe reports on the loss of civilian life, then you are either perfect example of stupidity or naivete associated with a stupid patriotism and fanaticism --Fredy.00 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
And then you still have the audacity to threaten someone who writes true, but unfortunately "politically embarrassing" information. --Fredy.00 (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
if you are U.S. resident, I give you a better proposal for a flag for your country - this flag would be better suited to her: thumb|Just do not forget scold, you a patriotic American brat --Fredy.00 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Elvis PresleyIt seems as if we have a content dispute. I will leave it for now, but I do not agree with some of your recent edits. In my opinion, well-sourced contributions by other users should not be deleted. Onefortyone (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Stop!Please do not leave nonsense on my page about reverts. I know your a huge Elvis fan but dont be hypocritcal when you edited just as much as me. Should I post the same thing on your page? I have right to edit just like you regardless of how long you have been editing. A Star Is Here (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC) You can continue to post as you like on page as well just remember I have left a comment on the talk page you havent. Just remember your step away from being blocked. So before you come with your nonsense to my page see my explantation on the Elvis talk page. A Star Is Here (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Concerning the "Photo-Drama of Creation" on the "Sound Films" Page...I am assuming that by your statement of the paragraph being "completely unsourced", you mean that I have no references. Very well; I will give the needed references. This message is from 96.250.154.201. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.154.201 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Hi, Doc... hope you've had a better weekend than I have here at WP! (Trouble-trouble for me!) Listen, if you haven't noticed already, at the bottom of both The Beatles and Elvis Presley pages, you will see that the categories box comes into conflict with the template and external links. This is the same for many other articles, too. I've notified WP's two developers, but have not received any word back. I presume this originated in early/mid-December when the article parameters for Wikipedia were changed. Also, might you check out my work on Elvis' singles template sometime. Talk to you sometime again. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you raised comments about the quality of the prose on Brad Pitt in its FAC in June last year. I've recently undertaken a copyedit, at the request of ThinkBlue, the nominator, and I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look and provide a little feedback- I wouldn't be surprised if I'd missed something, so any examples of prose needing improvement or general constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time, HJMitchell You rang? 22:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Kate WinsletThanks for fixing the awards section. I tried to find where the youngest for 2 nominations had been removed before after the GAN reviewer added but couldn't. I put the progression of awards from fewer noms to 6 noms. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Just a question, DocKinoMore than once, you have deleted an accurate quote from a reputable British film magazine. As the editorial article of 1959 shows, Elvis’s “aggressively bisexual” appearance in his films was noticed long before his death. Your version of the paragraph suggests that only recent “gender studies” are of the opinion that his persona was sexually ambiguous. I hope you see the problem. By the way, there are additional sources dealing with the topic. For instance, art historian Richard Meyer has noted the homoerotic content of Warhol's picture, “Triple Elvis” of 1964. Onefortyone (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Promo stillsDocKino, would this site be safe to use for PD/No copyright notice Promo Stills? The photos of the Grateful Dead, Who, and Rolling Stones could prove useful in their respective articles. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Just a questionAre you aware that, in some cases, your attitude towards historical facts and well-sourced contributions by other users is somewhat questionable, DocKino? Not to mention your rather condescending behavior towards me because I have a more critical view than other Wikipedians. (I do not think that this is fully in line with Wikipedia policies.) However, in general, I am very satisfied with your edits, as they actually contribute to the improvement of the Elvis article. Onefortyone (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry to bother you again, DocKino, but I'd like to share with you my thoughts about the future of The Kinks. I am most likely not going to re-nominate the article for GA, as it would be too long of a wait, and nothing "good" so far has come from it. I will work on the article some more, and eventually nominate it for a peer review. If everything proves satisfactory there, and you believe it to be ready, I'll post it for FAC. I will also check with Malleus Fatuorum, as he was also very active in the last FA review of the article. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Admin Incident's noticeboardHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC) You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. It's Now or NeverIt's time ... would one of the copyediting and reviewing kings like to be the King nominator? I believe the circumstances mean both that it's going to be fun, and that no other path than FAC is viable. I'm more than happy to take it on if that's what you'd prefer. PL290 (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I'm Counting on YouYour well of diplomacy runs deeper than mine--a virtue that will surely be tested during this effort. (Over/under on initial demand for a "Critical voices" section: 26 hours.) Go for it. You can reference me as conominator, and I'll troubleshoot while offering only excruciatingly restrained commentary. It's been fun so far, mate. With any luck... DocKino (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC) PL290 has bought you a pint! Italian wine is good, but right now, the beer is on me. Cheers! PL290 (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Do you really have nothing better to do? If you genuinely have an issue with my conduct or my interpretation of policy, contact me, I'm always open to advice and both of us could benefit from any ensuing discussion. If you have advice for the poster (and please note what they are asking) then post it in the thread. Posting these ridulous snide comments really isn't helping anyone. J Milburn (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Kinks PR and Image QueryIt's now up and running. While I'm here, I also have a question. I have in my possession an advertisement, printed by Warner Bros./Reprise Records, advertising their double-album label-wide sampler, The Big Ball. The advertisement includes multiple photos of artists on Warner/Reprise, including The Kinks. I've made a high-quality scan of the ad—you can find it on Photobucket here. There are absolutely no copyright notices anywhere on the advertisement (the reverse is blank). What do you think? I'll make another high-quality scan of the Kinks image, if you like. Many thanks, - I.M.S. (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Life's rich tapestryWell. Only 10 days in, with two supports already, plus two very-close-to-supports, and two looks-good-likely-to-support-in-due-courses (taking the 2 to potentially 6 without even counting others likely to weigh in and support at any moment), versus one entirely predictable oppose--and outstanding issues currently amounting to tidying up a few Elvis Australia sources--we really weren't expecting that ... PL290 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Done for now...I'm going a little cross-eyed on the Elvis ref work so I am going to call it a night. If you spot any ref errors, feel free to fix them, of course, but if it's not clear what's going on you can throw them in my lap. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Kate Winslet and youngest to receive two nomsJust saying that after you removed the statement from the article, the good article reviewer put it back in with a source that I thought was sketchy. It was again removed and he insisted it be returned. I emailed him that Sal Mineo beat that record so he insisted that it be documented. I couldn't remember who else had been mentioned about this so I looked at Audrey Hepburn. The reason it was included at all was because the reviewer insisted upon it. I'm glad that it has been resolved. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC) OnefortyonePlease see my warning to this user here. I'm not sure if you were aware that this user is on probation regarding Elvis and related articles owing to this ArbCom case. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Reference sequenceI saw your Elvis Presley edit where you sequenced unauthored references by ref name. Previously, they were by the article title. I am pretty sure the rule for the Harvard style is to order by article title and that's why I sort them that way. I see your point, however, that finding the item by the same text as used in the short reference is easier when going from the short footnote full reference. (I wonder why the Harvard syle specifies it otherwise?) Savvy readers will know they can click the short icon link to scroll to and highlight the appropriate reference, and that's the easiest way no matter what the sequence is. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
TalkbackYou can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Kinks FACIt's up and running. Thanks very much for all your help getting it there! - I.M.S. (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Kinks quote box
Ray Davies, on the months around the time of "Waterloo Sunset"[1]
Dave Davies
What do you think of the "There were only a few bands that had this sorta really rough-sounding" quote box at The Kinks? I really think it serves no purpose, and adds very little. Here's a quote that I think works better; it illustrates Ray's feelings towards the outside world during the "Waterloo Sunset" period:
As you can see, I've made an example box at right. Here's another quote, to be included with the main text (it would also work great in the sample caption), for your consideration:
An example is shown at left. What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Barnstar
Elvis featuredIf the taste of a pint sometimes depends on who's bought it for ya, then PL290's has gone down a treat! You guys really whipped things up, and my heartfelt thanks to you for doing so. Rikstar409 10:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
...aaand on that note...
Your biased attitudeYou may be a very good copyeditor, but you have more than once removed a well-sourced addition to the article on The Ed Sullivan Show, accusing me of a subjective, idiosyncratic view per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. To my mind, you are wrong, as the statement by Rodriguez adds, for reasons of balance, an aspect to the article not mentioned before and is therefore fully in line with Wikipedia policies. Furthermore, could you please explain to me what is so important about the following passages that are still part of the same article:
The fact that you have left all these other unencyclopedic passages untouched shows your biased attitude in handling my contributions. Just for the record. There were good reasons to include this additional remark in the article,
for, some time ago, another user, Jaye9, cited Elvis himself saying,
This shows that Rodriguez was certainly right with his opinion, and for reasons of balance, his statement should be included in the Sullivan article. Onefortyone (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!
QuestionHey DocKino. So, I'm planning on nominating South Park (season 13) for FAC. I'm very active in the South Park featured topic drive and, much like Parks and Recreation, I've been following the thirteenth season of South Park all along, working on the episode articles and accumulating lots of sources and information. I think the article is currently well-sourced, comprehensive and fairly well written, and it's passed both a GA review and been peer reviewed. However, I'm sure like P&R prose issues will be raised at the FAC, and you have an immaculate track record when it comes to copy editing. I hate to be a bother, but I wonder if you'd consider giving it a once over before I nominate it? Let me know if you have the time or inclination. If not it's no big deal, but if you could, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks in advance! — Hunter Kahn 04:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
InsultingAre you aware you can revert a user's attempt to improve the project without being insulting ? Gnevin (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC) So, sort of an unusual situation, but the FAC for the South Park (season 13) article was withdrawn, apparently because I indicated on the page that you intended to give it a look through. This was apparently taken as me acknowledging that the article was lacking, which wasn't really what I meant. In any event though, I guess I'll resubmit it after you're able to give it a CE. Let me know when you can do it, there's no rush. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 00:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Sex Pistols TFAJust to say I think you have done an amazing job with this article, and here it is on main page! The level of vandelism is likely to be overwhealming, so I'd tool up if I was you. Ceoil (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Restraint in bolded part of commentsI've asked four editors here to consider changing the bolded parts of their comments in that RfC. As you are one of those editors, I'm notifying you here so you are aware of the request. If you are prepared to change the bolded comment to just "support" or "oppose", could you please refactor completely, rather than using strike-through. Any emphasis can be moved to the non-bolded part of the comment. To make clear what has happened, you can also re-sign your comment to include the date it was updated, I tend to use the following code: <small>Updated: ~~~~~</small>. The aim here is to reduce the rhetoric and inappropriate emphasis, and to refocus discussion on what needs doing here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Why are you reverting my photo placement on the Ramones article?I would really like to get along; this is getting frustrating, though. I'm not just an editor here on Wikipedia, but also a photographer in my real life. For the past few years I've been uploading about 400 free images to Wikimedia Commons-- there's a small gallery and list of the majority of them. I've got several award-winning photos which, rather than signing a lucrative book deal instead have changed to Creative Commons licensing to use of Joey Ramone, Joey and Johnny Ramone, Dee Dee Ramone, and a couple of others. Aesthetically, the one of Johnny and Joey really should have their backs to a side margin. It's why I've moved the photo there twice. Take a look at my userpage; you'll get an idea of the photos I've uploaded and placed over the last few years on Wikipedia-I want us to be friends here! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Accidental revert?Hello. In this edit, did you intend to remove the word "speculate" that I had recently added to the list of synonyms for "said" to avoid? (I had neglected to log in, thus I showed up as IP 96.21.115.153.) I assume it was an error, as your edit summary does not refer to the change, but I wanted to check with you before adding it back. Thanks. Blackworm (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
3-revert warning
File copyright problem with File:Elvis_Presley_68_Comeback_Special.jpgThank you for uploading File:Elvis_Presley_68_Comeback_Special.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Rockfang (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Providing more informationAccording to the Non-free content criteria policy, all images must have a license tag applied to the image's description page. The above linked image did not have one when I put the above warning on your page, and it still does not have one.--Rockfang (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Rory Gallagher and Thin Lizzy/Phil LynottHey, Doc, are you familiar with Rory Gallagher and/or Thin Lizzy, Phil Lynott, or Gary Moore? I've noticed that some really fantastic musicians from Ireland have been quite noticeable ignored. I've found an editor focusing on Thin Lizzy, (and I think that beyond adding a couple of references to the other band members, that the band article should be the priority, as well as Phil Lynott's other work. My real interest though, along with that band is of Rory Gallagher, whose website has thankfully been updated to nearly top condition! I've got tons of videoed interviews with Gallagher on my You Tube site, and have a whole lot of magazine articles scanned which are in the external links section of his article (shame on me, I know).. there are several people who have expressed interest in the Gallagher article. Would you be interested in helping in any capacity whatsoever? I also edit half a dozen other articles like Derek Trucks and Cat Stevens, but Gallagher, even when I found his article haven been untouched virtually since 2005 full of urban myths, it was still getting more hits than some of the others, so although many Americans seem unaware of his impact on the Blues rock genre, I think it needs to be addressed. Can you help? I like your work, so, I thought I'd toss this out as a hopeful kind of thing.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Popular Music TheoryI just wanted to say that those text books are a great reference, I'm glad that you pointed it out for the Sex Pistols article. You can access full text versions at Google books. Take care J04n(talk page) 13:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC) FAsHope you're well. Left unsaid but needs saying: I enjoyed collaborating with you for the Presley FA earlier this year, and would consider it an honour if you felt like repeating the experience sometime. I don't have a particular article in mind, but if you're amenable to the idea I may make suggestions at some point (and would welcome the same from you). I suggest we each retain the expectation that nothing may come of such suggestions if the other party's busy or not interested in an article, but if it happens, it happens. Sound good? On another note, since John Lennon achieved FA status a couple of weeks ago, it's had a small number of well-meaning but LQ edits. If you're at all interested in that article, care to watchlist and help keep an eye? No matter if not. Let me know in due course if you have any thoughts on other articles to take forward. PL290 (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC) User conduct warningI have previously reprimanded your disrespectful behavior towards another user on Talk:Elvis Presley, specifically in my analysis of one thread on that discussion page (most easily accessible in the section named "This talk page is poisoned" here). In a post you made today you write "Since Meco and The Troll...sorry, the Troll...found each other here on "Toilet Talk"..." I contend that this type of language goes beyond mere flippancy and I find you are in clear violation of WP:WIKIQUETTE, specifically WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. If you continue to resort to name-calling and making snide remarks instead of finding appropriate venues to vent your frustrations or constructively address the underlying conflicts I will file a report against you at WP:RFC/USER. __meco (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Hello from LondonClick here [12] and scroll down to forum member Elvis the Pelvis and follow the thread. Will leave you to draw your own conclusions! Rikstar409 13:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Hey DocKino. Were you still interested in doing a copy edit of South Park (season 13)? Let me know. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 13:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You are now a Reviewer Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC). Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here. If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC) FetchDoc, what’s up - why are you removing this? We’ve been through all this before (somewhere in the archives) and pop / rock was settled upon. What’s wrong with pop as a category? It’s a perfectly accurate description of The Beatles’ music circa 1963. --Patthedog (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There are two issues here: a) there is consensus for the "pop and ballads" bit; and b) there is no consensus for the "as a beat group" change. I disagree with your opinion of the first issue, and agree completely with your thoughts on the second. Radiopathy •talk• 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC) July 2010
For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used. In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 22:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used. In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 22:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC) The Beatles discussionYou may be interested in a discussion I've started on The Beatles talk page. --JD554 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC) I would kindly remind you stick to the issues, and avoid personalising the matter with your attacks and your patronising tone. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Oh, lookee here: who put all the 'breakups' back with a blind revert??? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC) ResponseSince you didn't check my talk page, I'm transcluding my response there:
Discussion re:The BeatlesI've started a discussion here that you may be interested in. Radiopathy •talk• 16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC) In regards to this, among others, stop your insults now or you will go to WP:AN/I. Radiopathy •talk• 15:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC) personal attacksHave you read the policy on personal attacks? Posts like this, about other editors, are not on here. Rather than stirring the outcome you want, they'll only make getting what you want more of a slog, because some editors will understandably want to have nothing to do with you. Since this is an opening editing project, like it or not, one must mostly find ways to get along with other editors. Comment only on sources and how to echo them in the text, not other editors. Likewise MoS/spelling woes, you can talk about those, cite sources and so on, but don't throw in name calling. If this carries on, some admin at some time will wind up blocking you to shield other volunteer editors from your taunts. The personal attack policy has aught to do with whether or not your editorial outlook on something like, say, spelling, is supported by sources on the topic, on English spellings, by en.WP policy or other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC) I read your post on my talk page. The thing is, personal attacks aren't allowed anywhere on this website, ever. If someone, say, in some editing spat, were to call me the devil's very own spawn, I could not taunt back that they were Mosley Nazis, even as a jibe in idiom. It's that straightforward, so don't comment on other editors, sooner or later, it won't lead to the kind of outcome you seem to want. Please find other ways to deal with editing disagreements. Citing sources, along with en.WP policies and guidelines, is wontedly a help. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Done at TitanicHello. I'm just letting you know that I did the request you wanted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titanic (1997 film)/archive2. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 03:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Preceding decadeYes, it's better this way [13]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Request for OpinionI found you in the FAC review for Parks and Recreation (season 1). I am trying to get an opinion on whether Glee (season 1) might in fact also meet the criteria for FA. It is currently listed for FLC. Would you mind giving it a quick view and giving me an opinion one way or the other? Frickative and I are currently considering whether to change the nomination. Your feedback is appreciated! CycloneGU (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Second opinion plsWas wondering if you could look at other additions by Rjensen..Specifically what is going on here -->Talk:History of the United States....Moxy (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC) LennonDoc, you gotta step back from WP:3RR there-- the Grey fellow has already been warned-- let others take it on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC) The ClashWhy did you remove the dead link tags? cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 22:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Doc, it's Hunter Kahn. I know you're a busy guy, but since you were very helpful to me in my Tender Mercies FAC, I thought I'd reach out. I recently nominated Into Temptation (film) for FA, but it failed due to inactivity after it failed to generate any reviews of either support or oppose. The FA delegate suggested I try to get some of the film-oriented editors involved before bringing it back to FAC. I wonder if perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at it some time soon, before I bring it back to FAC (which I would expect to happen in a week or two, maybe), with the hopes that you might weigh in then? It's a relatively short article, but if you are too busy, it's no biggie. Let me know what you think. — Hunter Kahn 04:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
chalet du lac
So, the question is who's right? Bruno Blum, a french jounalist who was part of the event OR George Gimarc, an american writer who wasn't? Gimarc obviously wrote a rumour he heard. I've got Blum's book at home, I will submit the source later. One has to be suspicious of journalists who write about an event/festival without even attending it. The sentence I had erased yesterday, looks trivial.
http://www.acc.umu.se/~samhain/summerofhate/punk.html. This should be mentionned in the article because if one doesn't, this biography can look like a hagiography. Carliertwo (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC) To be precise, Siouxsie was punched in another part in Paris, in a park near Tower Eiffel when she had slept with friends. It has got nothing to do with the actual Pistols gig who took place outside the town. So, why mentioning "Siouxsie's swastika causing a stir" here after a sentence mentioning the Paris gig, isn't it trivial? The swastika issue is important and wikipedia has mentionned it in the Siouxsie article. Why is it not the same about the members of the Sex Pistols ? You haven't replied to that point. As you are apparently the main user of the Sex Pistols page, I ask you this a second time : why is the Rotten's swastika episode not related in the article? Carliertwo (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry!Hey there, Dr. Kino. :D I see that you left a comment on the Into Temptation (film) talk page. I didn't see that until recently, so I apologize for the delay in responding. I think it's probably best to keep all the comments in one place, and the talk page seems like the best place for that, so I'll keep an eye on it from now on. Take your time in responding. Thanks for starting your review, and sorry again for the delay! — Hunter Kahn 22:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Edit summariesPlease don't make wise cracks in edit summaries. There's a way to explain things to people nicely. Thanks. --John of Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Your offensive comments on Talk:Punk rockHey, I do not appreciate all of your comments directed at me on Talk:Punk rock. I am not stupid, despite what you think, I do know what I am doing. I have been trying to stay civil and not start a huge argument (it's very hard to), but I feel that I should say something to you about it. I find your comments (and you) very offensive. I may not have as much experience on Wikipedia as you, but at least I am nice to people. Now look, I do not want to argue, I actually would like to be friends with you, but I am not going to put up with you insulting me. I am not a brand new member of Wikipedia (I joined in January), though as far as I can tell, I am still considered one, so maybe you should read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. And by the way, you will be happy to know (I am sure all of your dreams will have came true), I am done editing the punk rock article, I'm very tired of dealing with people like you and DCGeist who keep insulting me (especially you, DocKino). And I might even stop editing Wikipedia entirely. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC) The theYou really should read this, [14]. It's my attempt to stop the war that has been going on for years. As the article is already called The Beatles, there is no need to keep repeating it in the article.--andreasegde (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
How's the weather in Tel Aviv? :))--andreasegde (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC) You are not here to decide what you think is right. This project (and you're not even a member of it), has been trying to stop the 'The-the' war for years, and you are being self-opinionated and destructive. We're almost to the point of a cease-fire, and you bring a gallon of petrol to the party. This is no no time to be an FAC punk rocker. Read, learn, and add your opinion, but do NOT think you can do what you like.--andreasegde (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC) And?
Time to talkDoc, your work on The Beatles today was up to your usual high standards, but you may not be entirely blameless for the response you got. I'm referring not even so much to the sweeping nature of your reversion last week, but to the tone with which you explained it then on the Talk page. Believe me, I know all the crap you and PL290 went through on that article, but you did jump the gun in this case and it might be helpful to acknowledge that, in whichever forum you deem appropriate.—DCGeist (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC) "The Beatles" versus "the Beatles"There is currently a vote taking place and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC) "African-American" as an adjectiveWhen you were confronted with one editor, Fat&Happy, changing "African American music" to African-American music" you called his action "rank, stinking BS" and you called him a pretentious simpleton, violating WP:NPA. When I came in to reinforce the hyphen, you responded "No, it's only hyphenated if we choose to hyphenate it." At that point, however, you were in the minority. At that point, we chose to hyphenate it. Yes, I understand that it may or may not be hyphenated. The point is that two editors wished to do so and you alone did not, but you gave the impression that there were more people choosing this path, that the non-hyphen group was larger. I checked the article's talk page and edit history, and I found no such discussion about the hyphen in "African-American" when it is used as an adjective. There is no consensus established, there is only article history. In all the article milestones, all the assessments to gain GA or FA status, only one of them has an instance of the terms "African-American" or "African American". Both constructions are used by Steve Pastor in the December 2006 FA discussion, and it is clear Pastor uses a space for the noun and a hyphen for the adjective. In the talk page archives, the two styles are found at random, with most of the "space" versions found in your posts. The hyphen versions are found consistently in posts by User:Onefortyone. Thus, even talk page history does not support your position of a consensus being established. I think the question should be taken to the talk page rather than reverted further using only edit summaries. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Main page appearanceHello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 8, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 8, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC) House is an American television medical drama that debuted on the Fox network on November 16, 2004. The show's central character is Dr. Gregory House (Hugh Laurie), an unconventional and misanthropic medical genius who heads a team of diagnosticians at the fictional Princeton‑Plainsboro Teaching Hospital in New Jersey. The show's premise originated with Paul Attanasio, while David Shore, who is credited as creator, was primarily responsible for the conception of the title character. It is largely filmed in Century City. House often clashes with his fellow physicians, including his own diagnostic team, because many of his hypotheses about patients' illnesses are based on subtle or controversial insights. His flouting of hospital rules and procedures frequently runs him afoul of his boss (and, later, girlfriend), hospital administrator and Dean of Medicine Dr. Lisa Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein). House's only true friend is Dr. James Wilson (Robert Sean Leonard), head of the Department of Oncology. Critically acclaimed for much of its run, House maintains high viewer ratings. Distributed to 66 countries, House was the most watched television program in the world in 2008. (more...) Hey Kal, it's Hunter Kahn. You may recall that you had started to copy edit Into Temptation (film) a number of years back. I honestly don't recall if you had finished that review or not. In any event, I plan to bring that article back to WP:FAC in short order, as soon as my current nom for Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1) concludes. I was hoping to check in and see whether you had finished it or not, and by extension whether you think it's ready for the FAC process. (It had failed once before, mainly due to lack of participation in the review.) If you are too busy to look at this article, it's no big deal, I can manage without, but did want to check in before I brought it back to FAC. Let me know either way. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 04:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Pulp FictionHello. It would be nice if you took part in the Pulp Fiction talk page instead of engaging in a tag team edit war. Thanks. :-) —Mike Allen 22:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC) External link at United StatesHey, I just wanted to let you know that I agree with the removal of the external link I inserted. It was my attempt as a compromise between myself (who wanted an external link gone) and User:Judygreenberg, who wanted a low-quality website that hadn't been updated in eleven years included as an external link. However, if I'm not the only one that thinks either link should not be there, I'd be glad to both links removed from the article. - SudoGhost 06:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Lennon/McCartney or Lennon–McCartneyThere is a discussion here where we could use your input. Thanks. CuriousEric 23:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC) "Free as a Bird" is a song performed by The Beatles.There is a discussion here which may interest you. Radiopathy •talk• 18:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit warringI don't have the time to get stuck into the full issues here, but may I advise you to stop edit warring warnings onto User talk:Absconded Northerner. He/she is perfectly allowed to remove the warnings from their talk page, regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong". If you continue to edit war on their talk page, you may find yourself getting blocked by whoever reviews this entire situation. --Taelus (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Who are the biggest fan of The Beatles band at the English Wikipedia ?Hello. Are you, or ? I watched the history of the article. - 78.106.248.189 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC). "Free as a Bird" proposed lede changeFYI, there is a vote taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Sex PistolsHi Doc, there seems to be an issue at Talk:Sex Pistols#he's the punkiest… well, i replied for you but just thought you might want to know anyway. benzband (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Citing to an edited work by multiple authorsDo you, per chance know how this can be accomplished using sfn? I noticed a few edited works are used in the Beatles article, and as it is now, it appears as though the editor is the author. "Citations for individually authored chapters in books typically include the name of the author, the title of the chapter, the name of the book's editor, and the name of the book and other details as above. Take care to ensure that the editor is not represented as the author." Also, I would like to convert some of the online allmusic review quotes to published sources, and most of them are in an edited work, the allmusic guides. With harvnb, which I've been using, it's simple, such as: <ref> Unterberger, Richie, "Abbey Road", in {{Harvnb|Smith|2011|p=98}}</ref> — GabeMc (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC) US revertsI would like to know how exactly my small edits of the United States article were "poor, undiscussed, and unreferenced"... what is your rationale?
I don't want to start an edit war, so please allow me to revert my edits back, as I contend there is nothing wrong with them. If you want me to source my info on US pop density, I will, but everything else is completely fine. Regards, Cadiomals (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Ramones revertsHi there, I wonder if you could help me understand why you labelled my edits unproductive? There is a greater level of structure added compared the previous format. I also added an update here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Punk_music#Ramones Regards, Socheid (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I am removing the comment I added here a few moments ago. I have since seen your comment on the talk page and so I am removing what I added here and also offer an accompanying apology. Regards, Socheid (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC) No reply yet?I basically just copied and pasted my message to you regarded my "poor, undiscussed, and unreferenced" edits from two days ago on the United States discussion page, and you have yet to reply to it. I would be happy to hear your criticisms, but if you don't reply soon I will be inclined to put back my contributions since they were in good faith. Thanks, Cadiomals (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC) James BevelHello. I noticed you removed James Bevel from the United States page. DC Geist and I had numerous discussion time on the subject, and the prominence is backed by historican David Garrow. What would you like to know about the subject which will set your mind at ease over the long-time inclusion of Bevel's name in the article. Thanks, and happy holidays and all that. Randy 16:49 21-12-'11
|
_(crop).jpg){kind=link}
_(crop).jpg){kind=link}
_(crop).jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
