User talk:Rikstar: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:07, 18 July 2009

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting help
Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

/Archive 1

I'ts been sorted out

Rikstar,disregard my query re:I'm Just Curious. It's been sorted out. Sorry to bother you. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaye9 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation

I've been racking my brains,as to why the Elvis article,remains a B Class article. As I ask myself,is it just the length that is the only problem going on here?

I believe the sandbox version is heading in a positive direction,as most people seem to be happy with this version over the current one.

You said that you looked at the Judy Garland article,which I looked at and I have also read the John Lennon article as well. Bearing in mind that the Judy Garland is a FA article and the John Lennon is a GA article,why isn't Elvis?

My uncle both toured with the Beatles and Judy Garland back in 1964,as well as others. Why I'm pointing this out to you Rikstar,is that he never once spoke ill of any of these people,it's called respect for oneself and others,in other words it's professional,showing some class, whatever you want to call it.

However there is one editor who is not pleased with sandbox version,as he has mentioned that you have taken out alot of the criticism on Presley as well as the relationships etc.

I for one believe in constructive criticism,but grabbing at everything negative that you can find,I carn't for the life of me believe this will help you better understand Presley both as an entertainer and as a person,than you did before. I do not get this feeling from the John Lennon article or the Judy Gardland article as I do with Elvis Presley article and it's got nothing to do with being a fan,as I am a big Lennon fan as well.

As far as the relationships, yes I believe it needs a section. I do like they way the John Lennon article shows this, with only the women who were important to him,not flings not one nights stands.

Joe Esposito mentions,along with the Memphis Mafia fellows that Elvis had many affairs and one night stands,for a general encyclopedia I would class this as trivial. However,they do mention that there was only a few - Anita Wood,Priscilla,Ann Margaret,Linda Thompson,Sheila Ryan and Barbara Leigh-really meant something to him. Perhaps we could do something on them, I think,much more appropriate. What do you think? Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty page - test

Jaye9 has posted in the above section but I can't see it. Will try to transfer it here. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to debrief re:Elvis article

Hi Rikstar, I thought long and hard about this, but may I have your email address Rikstar,so as to converse with you about the Elvis article,I feel by doing so, may or may not save us both alot of time and effort,but heck anything is worth a try. If you would rather not,I'd perfectly understand and would not at all be offended. All the best.--Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left message on my talk page. HELP --Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaye9 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

testing this page

with a few words. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testing

Had problems - editors not able to post here for months. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hound Dog on Milton Berle

Rikstar, This is the one - [1]. The second one is synced pretty well, but you're right, it's another recording with added instrumentation. Note the "slow mo" at the end so that Elvis's moving foot/leg stays "in time" with the music. One of the reasons Presley bombed in Vegas in 56 was that their sound was "tinny", as one wag wrote. (It was the Sinatra days back then). Congrats on finding this. Let me know if you want me to do the replacements, but I'll be on vacation for the next 6 days. Finally, people can see for themselves! Steve Pastor (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presley

Was it such a major change? I know Presley wasn't responsible for composing most of the lyrics he sung, but I thought he at least contributed to the process. --Heslopian (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Festive Cheer

Wishing you and your family a safe and wonderful Christmas. Look forward to editing with you again in the New Year.--Jaye9 (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rikstar,thank you for your comments and yes it is slow and tiring at times,but it's just how it is. However,if I thought that the editors who are contributing to this article showed no integrity and compassion for this entertainer,I would not stick around. I have seen some improvements to this article in the last six months and with time it can only get better. I'm right behind you all the way.--Jaye9 (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis: "Bare Bones"

Hi Rik, thanks for your message on my page. The article is still a good piece, in my honest opinion, and it is tiring for it to be constantly attacked by other users without any real suggestion on how to improve it. As they say, those who can, do, those who can't, critique. Anyway, your suggestion of taking it back to bare bones is an interesting one. I think there are sentences and perhaps even whole paragraphs that could be removed or shortened, but only if it really is necessary. I use Wikipedia to research many things I wish to find out more about, and as a tool for that it is usually quite adequate. I enjoy articles that are easy enough to read for those who are just passing through with a minor interest on a subject, but I also enjoy articles that go that extra mile and do delve into a little more detail for those who wish to have as much of the information as possible. I will back you on any cuts you wish to make, if you feel it will improve the article. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick look at your new version and I think it's very well done. Haven't had a chance to read it word for word yet, but I like the layout and the simplistic nature of it. Excellent work! I'd recommend suggesting it to the talk page if you haven't already done so. I think most would be willing to accept it's a bettered piece. Perhaps others would recommend more for deletion or inclusion but that can be discussed. Good work, Rik.ElvisFan1981 (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the new version as well. If this was the one used as the Elvis aritcle,for the first time I would not hesitate to tell people of my involvement with this article,I would be proud to do so. Rikstar you have gone beyond what is asked from an editor,my sincere thanks to you for your efforts,this is without a doubt GA STATUS.--Jaye9 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rikstar excuse my enthusiasm,but what you have put done in the sandbox and the improvements you have made,is indeed a welcoming breath of fresh air for me. I'll be home for a bit over a week,if it is acceptable with you,I would love to discuss further with you re:new article,about a couple of very minor corrections,or it may be more appropriate for me to wait for you to take it to the Elvis talk page. I just think it's so wonderful what you've done with it.--Jaye9 (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have gone over this new version three times now,carn't find anything else that I can see needs correcting. What do you think?--Jaye9 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple of footnotes that I haven't been able to fix, but everything else seems ok. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mate,your formating this article and cutting it back some what,the way you have,has enabled me to read this artcle properly again. Something I have not been unable to do for some time now.like it's just been all to hard to deal with,It's like I've just been going through the motions. Were as now I was able to correct three things,without feeling daunted by it all. So you've made this editor happy. We'll just stick to our guns and stay with good reliable sources and we carn't go wrong.--Jaye9 (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued work on Elvis and Hi

Hi. I've noticed you've continued the work on the Elvis page and want to commend you for your efforts. Also wanted to say hi, since its been awhile. --Northmeister (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it. Northmeister (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious

Could I bother you with a question Rikstar. On the Talk:Elvis Presley,under the title: New video about Elvis,in red it says: Cite error<ref>tags exist,but no,. It also appears on my talk page as well. Would you know what that's about,as I have no idea. Thanks for time. ~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Jaye9|2=01:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)}}

It also appears on my talk page as well. Do you think that has anything to do with the comment I made about Racism. Reference to web about topic? ~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Jaye9|2=01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)}}

Now I'm really curious

The full text I have written to you has not appeared on your talk page.,nor has my signature. re:I'm just curiou. Now I'm really baffled. ~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Jaye9|2=02:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)}}

I'ts been sorted out

Rikstar,disregard my query re:I'm Just Curious. It's been sorted out. Sorry to bother you. ~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Jaye9|2=03:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)}}

Just an observation

I've been racking my brains,as to why the Elvis article,remains a B Class article. As I ask myself,is it just the length that is the only problem going on here?

I believe the sandbox version is heading in a positive direction,as most people seem to be happy with this version over the current one.

You said that you looked at the Judy Garland article,which I looked at and I have also read the John Lennon article as well. Bearing in mind that the Judy Garland is a FA article and the John Lennon is a GA article,why isn't Elvis?

My uncle both toured with the Beatles and Judy Garland back in 1964,as well as others. Why I'm pointing this out to you Rikstar,is that he never once spoke ill of any of these people,it's called respect for oneself and others,in other words it's professional,showing some class, whatever you want to call it.

However there is one editor who is not pleased with sandbox version,as he has mentioned that you have taken out alot of the criticism on Presley as well as the relationships etc.

I for one believe in constructive criticism,but grabbing at everything negative that you can find,I carn't for the life of me believe this will help you better understand Presley both as an entertainer and as a person,than you did before. I do not get this feeling from the John Lennon article or the Judy Gardland article as I do with Elvis Presley article and it's got nothing to do with being a fan,as I am a big Lennon fan as well.

As far as the relationships, yes I believe it needs a section. I do like they way the John Lennon article shows this, with only the women who were important to him,not flings not one nights stands.

Joe Esposito mentions,along with the Memphis Mafia fellows that Elvis had many affairs and one night stands,for a general encyclopedia I would class this as trivial. However,they do mention that there was only a few - Anita Wood,Priscilla,Ann Margaret,Linda Thompson,Sheila Ryan and Barbara Leigh-really meant something to him. Perhaps we could do something on them, I think,much more appropriate. What do you think? ~~~~

Faulty page - test

Jaye9 has posted in the above section but I can't see it. Will try to transfer it here. ~~~~

Request to debrief re:Elvis article

Hi Rikstar, I thought long and hard about this, but may I have your email address Rikstar,so as to converse with you about the Elvis article,I feel by doing so, may or may not save us both alot of time and effort,but heck anything is worth a try. If you would rather not,I'd perfectly understand and would not at all be offended. All the best.--~~~~

Left message on my talk page. HELP --~~~~ {{subst:Unsigned|1=Jaye9|2=10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)}}

testing this page

with a few words. ~~~~

Testing

Had problems - editors not able to post here for months. ~~~~

Another test post

I hope this works - this page not accepting messages for too long. ~~~~