This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 151.60.118.161(talk) at 18:57, 26 July 2009(Nationalisyt answer ìto be a refree in Wikipedia.~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:57, 26 July 2009 by 151.60.118.161(talk)(Nationalisyt answer ìto be a refree in Wikipedia.~~~~)
Hi, maybe I wasn't very clear in the edit description on the United States article. The definition of ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed.
By contrast a race is a group of people who share salient traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.
While it is true that there is no American race, it is not true that there is no American ethnicity. Many of us (regardless of race) have a history that has been intermingled and directly tied to one another for centuries now. And being "American" doesn't cancel out being part of another ethnic group. Some people have multiple ethnicities. Yongbyong38 (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko1322:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Films February Newsletter
The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023talk22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cites
Heh, thanks. :) And I may just take you up on that! I'm currently working on the Knights Templar article, which I'd like to get to FA status in time for it to appear on the mainpage on October 13, 2007, since that's the 700-year anniversary of when the Templars were rounded up and arrested in France. I've helped out with a few other FAs in the past, but in a more peripheral fashion. This will be my first "principal" nom, so any assistance that you can provide, to help navigate through the process (or edit the article!) will be much appreciated. For example, right now it's languishing at the GA page... Would you be interested in reviewing the article, or do you suggest that I simply wait until someone else gets around to it? Thanks in advance for any help, Elonka05:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, I think I covered the points that you were asking about at Knights Templar (which is currently up for FA). When you have a moment, could you please take a look and let me know if you still have any concerns? Thanks, Elonka21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image tagging for Image:Percepto.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Percepto.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin13:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Not surprisingly, heavy metal music is up for FAR. It was passed around the same time as punk rock but is in worse shape. I've tried working on it before, but frankly I stop caring about metal once you get past the original bands and the New Wave of British Heavy Metal. Led Zeppelin and Motorhead, yea; murderous Norweigan black metal and nu metal, nay. I'm going to be working on this substantially; the goal for me is "make it more like punk rock". What I'm mainly asking for you is some cleanup as I go about referencing things. I might also need help looking for appropriate soundclips and free images (remember when fair use was ok?). One problem present on the punk rock article that rears its head often on the heavy metal page is that there have been and invariably will be random heavy metal fans who'll try to shove in their favorite band into the article or try to push their own viewpoint of the genre's history without consideration of whether or not a)it is verifiable, b)it's necessary, and c)it makes the page look like ass the way they shoved it in. I'm going to need help sorting out these problems if they arise. Wish me luck! WesleyDodds09:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The hilarious part is even though my own metal collection consists of three Zeppelin albums (I always had my brother's to listen to), four Metallica albums (which I haven't listened to since high school), one AC/DC record (hard rock or metal?), one Helmet CD, and a CD-R of Iron Maiden and Pantera, my grasp of basic points of metal history is better than a lot of stuff metal fansites spew out (No, metal did not start in 1980. There's a reason they called it the "New Wave of British Heavy Metal". Yes, glam metal and nu metal bands count as metal. Just because they suck doesn't meant they aren't "true metal" *Manowar pose*.) Here's where that wonderful thing called "research" comes in handy. God, I love research. It's like it, y'know, confirms reality. WesleyDodds01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
OK.. you're welcome for the help. But we still need a detailed fair use rationale on ALL images. See how it says "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale"? Also, for ones marked as "screen shot", could you specify where the screen shot came from, did you create it, or find it on the internet somewhere?
As the incident is reflective of a larger pattern of behaviour, I'm probably going to take this further. I have toughts and openions (in text files) that would probably get me banned, but my openion is that, within process, there is a good case here. We are not children, and should not be treated as such. Ceoil17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you provided your opinion on several FAC pages. I nominated the Ohio Wesleyan University page and wanted to see if you have any time to provide your opinion and provide me with some feedback. I have tried to improve the article in the past four months, so I really want to see it promoted and any feedback will help me make it better. Thank you for your time in advance!!! I greatly appreciate it! LaSaltarella00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lede?
Dan it's "lead", not "lede". Once is a typo, twice is a curiosity, and three times is ... well, two times too many. It is so eye-catching that it tends to discredit whatever else you are saying. With warm regards (and pureness of heart), PeterHuntington22:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got your note, Dan. I had no idea that the journalism profession had gone so far over the edge. (Well, on second thought, maybe I did.) Does this mean we have to start calling a thematically-cohesive collection of sentences a "graph"? Does this mean we have to type "30" on the line after the end of an article? Do I have to start wearing a fedora so I have a hat band to store my press card in? Most importantly, do I have to start calling you "chief"? Where will it all end? I know. They'll start building statues of McCarthy in every town square, and you, my friend, will be assigned to write the "lede" for the story on the statue-unveiling in your home town. (Serves you right ... chief.) Copy!! PeterHuntington22:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, a defence of another user. You ask about "this string of snipes in the last 50-some hours" from Sandy. I think she feels like a punching-bag, because she's often the only one who engages on specifics at FAR and often gets unfairly yelled at for paying attention. Pan-FA consistency is important: B Movie remains, comparatively, a very long FA, and she's reacting to that.
Anyhow, it's always bad to see two well-meaning users argue, and I don't think the two of you need to; I involved myself because I think that you've both made good points and that a third party could help work it out. For instance, you've asked for examples and that's perfectly fair. In a "be bold" ten minutes, I made some edits myself to point out examples (including re my own example on the FAR). Do you want a full list of suggested compression? Tomorrow I could suggest some (though busy the following days). Honestly, I thought B Movie was a great read but there are areas where a) the reader is unnecessarily over-burdened by links and examples, b) the reader may seriously wonder if the article is wandering too far... That was my take: definitely comprehensive, but perhaps over-explaining at points. Marskell22:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. (Subject to retraction if by some off-chance your wiki-karma has attracted all that crap [by which I am not referring to that portion of the FAR commentary deemed constructive by a hypothetical consensus of users—as typified by Marskell. There, I've covered all my bases.]) –Outriggr§04:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Dan, in the course of trying to bring in/bring back other editors to this page, I saw your extensive comments to KScottBailey. It struck me that you took a fair tone there, despite your disagreement with that user about his conduct and viewpoint. I think it's likely that you and I differ at least to some degree politically, but I don't think that should matter in this case. In good faith, can you tell me that KarlBunker's dismissive replies ("I don't have to respond to you"), ignoring my valid arguments (such as "provide RS as a counterweight to the story you assert is disputed,") and personal attacks (accusing me of making deliberately false arguments?) are reasonable? Have you noticed a pattern in his editing style? Think it is helping WP or this article? I'm really frustrated here. I do think reasonable people can disagree about the amount of content, but I also don't think the Kennedy material is truly making the article NPOV due to undue weight. As I think I have made clear, I also don't think our article has to reflect some baseline percentage of other biographer's work- I think that's a baffling standard. And KB has also ignored my point about the amount of "trivia" in other biographical works on WP - not that I think any of this even qualifies as "trivia." Can you tell me your objective viewpoint on these questions? It's not about politics, it's about process. Respectfully, Kaisershatner13:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, first of all, many many many thanks for your long reply at my talk page, it is more than I could have hoped to have such a detailed and thoughtful analysis of the situation, and I think you have made a number of good points. I probably could have been more civil before shooting off my "beyond the pale" comment, I should know better. I concur that KB has generally added enormous amounts of well cited material to these articles, and has a good command of the facts (something I have stated at least twice on his talk page or on the article talk pages). I have even complimented his edits on at least one occasion. I certainly understand getting a hair trigger in response to months of ideologues and wingnuts vandalizing or pushing their perspectives (I was for a long time a major editor of Killian documents. OMG.) And you are understanding that my lapse was provoked by KB's treating my edit as total vandalism with the revert (this is a pattern of his, as a look through the archives or his talk shows a number of editors ballistic at similar treatment). Also, I was primed by some previous total reversions by him against me at McCarthyism regarding the Venona information. You are probably familiar with the feeling (WTF?!) when an edit that you see in your heart as good faith, and a properly cited one at that, is treated like simple vandalism with an instantaneous revert (hence, "beyond the pale.") Being generally a conscientious and experienced editor here, I was basically flabbergasted to be chucked out of the article without even a "by the way, here's what I think" on the talk page.
On a practical level:
I'd be interested in how we can get back to "the version preceding your 9:03 edit." I do not want to be accused of edit warring.
I agree in spirit with your view that the Johnson quote explains the rationale without explicitly providing evidence of such a deal. I wonder if more than circumstantial evidence exists, but I am willing to look and may try to find the Whalen book, which has a whole chapter on McCarthy/1952 Senate. However, where KB says "do your own research," this is not merely uncivil - shouldn't the presumption be in favor of keeping cited facts while counter-facts are sought? And isn't the burden of proof here on the person asserting there is a dispute?
The personal attacks you acknowledge are more than just in the one post of his, but the volume of them isn't really the issue, so I won't waste more of your time by pointing at them one by one (see! see!).
"There are limits to how much prose is generally regarded as acceptable. See Wikipedia:Article size. In this regard, Karl's sensitivity to overall length (and thus internal relative length) is appropriate." Agreed that some sensitivity is warranted. Here my point is simply, "reasonable people may disagree about what constitutes undue weight or what is too much." My main concern is that I am being painted as some kind of craven vandal because I want 7 sentences and he wants 4.
You had trouble finding the "trivia" argument. If you are interested, it is where I point out that the Ghandi article mentions he barely passed his entrance exams. The wider point is just that we have an ongoing argument about what should be included- KB has said repeatedly "there is nothing notable about McCarthy's personal life." I see the role of a biographical article differently. I also continue to get no explanation of why, just to fixate on one point, the "McCarthy was a closet homosexual" incident is fought for with pro and con citations, but the standard for "He was a close friend of the Kennedys even before he was famous" is a fight to the death over two more lines.
Anyway, thanks again. I have asked some other editors to take a look and set me straight in case the fact that I am seeing red (ha!) is coloring my editorial judgment. I have previously suggested KB undertake a similar self-examination but in the end I can only control my own behavior, so I will try to do better there. Maybe having established a dialogue between you and me, we can work better together; it was my experience at Killian. Kaisershatner21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, can you take a look at the last exchange regarding the 1952 election? Looking at the citations, is there doubt in your mind that there was a deal, or at least that it has been widely suggested by reliable sources that there was a deal? Kaisershatner17:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dan, check the above section at talk, now that I've taken a closer look I already wrote I agree with your placement. Make the move, as far as I'm concerned it's a good one, better than my idea. Kaisershatner21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, will you please ask "RedSpruce" (fmr. KarlBunker) to discuss changes at talk BEFORE reverting them. Please look at my changes and let me know if they were highly controversial. Once again, seeing that stuff treated as vandalism is frustrating, and especially after I specifically asked KB to take his finger off of the revert button. Kaisershatner15:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, thanks for the note, and the link, have to read up more on your philosophy for my own edification. And I appreciate the feedback about the copyediting; I think I failed to present my best side when we first began collaborating, for various reasons. Like you, I think the objective truth has to come first, ideology notwithstanding, and I think people should be able to agree on the facts, if not their precise significance or causal factors (hence the Moynihan quotation on my user page). You make a good guess about my politics. I think Goldwater was a very interesting politician. I look forward to continued work with you. Best, Kaisershatner00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This subject heading confuses me. Is Peter saying that he's a dick? And is he complaining because he's small endowed? This is a talk page, not a locker room. Jeffpw08:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or Joseph Lai? Or Tomas Tang? If you're going to write a low-budget commercial cinema article with a global perspective, you'll need to mention Robo Vampire and the people who made movies of the pieces-of-unfinished-movies-with-shots-of-ninja-thrown-in persuasion. You can read more about it here. I'm asking because you don't mention any Asian cinema-related anything on your userpage.
Go through the history section starting from the beginning, since that's pretty much how I've worked on it. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the three main sources (Christe, Walser, and Weinstein) are browsable via Amazon.com's book search feature; you can actually read any of the books in their entirety if you search right. You might want to browse through them to try an replace the less credible citations like the fansites and so forth. I plan to work on the Characteristics section next, but since I'll be out of town fo rthe next two days any cleanup you can provide would be appreciated.
I still think the B movie article is a little too long but I do respect the work you've done on it thus far. It's a very solid article overall. I just wanted to come here to tell you to keep your head up as the FAR got pretty heated and you took your share of criticism. Don't let it get you frustrated, I know how hard it is when a major work of yours gets criticized so heavily. A labor of love of mine recently underwent an unbelievable hailstorm of criticism when I put it up for FA. Luckily, after some intensive work, things later worked themselves out. So basically I know how it feels, and even though I still think it could use slight trimming I respect all the work you did and know how hard the whole process must have been. So congrats on retaining the article as an FA and also congrats on taking it from this to where it is now. Quadzilla9919:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RKO pictures
Hi! I thought I will talk to you here. I went through your user page —- impressive. I myself am not a great follower of Hollywood movies, at least not stuffs like B movies. However I would like to see many of them one day (availability is a problem where I live. Old Hollywood movies are not readily available unless the movie is very well known, like Citizen Kane, King Kong, just to name two from the RKO repertoire). You will be surprised I did not know the names Astaire–Rogers before!
I was wondering why the FAC is going only lukewarm! The subject is pretty interesting. Have you advertised in relevant wikiprojects? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RKO General
I wonder why GenCorp keeps it in existence (what does its 06 report say?) - its raison d'être - the broadcasting and film assets - are long gone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PMA (talk • contribs) 08:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Why didn't they just hand over the whole shebang to RKO Pictures - what use does GenCorp have for RKO-related stuff now? PMA10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked
You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at sound film. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes rather than engage in an edit war. The duration of the block is 8 hours. If you believe the block to be unjustified, please add {{unblock|your reason}} to this page to request a review. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
March WP:FILMS Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by BrownBot00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Thank you for the explanation. I was not aware of his editing in the article, must have overlooked that, sorry. I restored the box after your edit but did not alter the article. The content dispute will go to talk page and resolved, I hope. Happy editing! WooyiTalk, Editor review17:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WooyiTalk, Editor review has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Travel
I was traveling most of late Feb–March, and have just realized that I completely missed the message you left on my talk page. (I just saw it as I was reviewing to archive.) Thanks for the note and consideration. The content didn't actually bother me as much as my pet peeve about admin double standards—that it stands on an admin's page is what troubles me about Wiki. Ah, well, onward and upward. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Film freak
Glancing over you work on the B-movie articles (particularly the image captions) has me thinking not only that you might want to tone down the jokes, puns, and somewhat POV phrasing you use there, but that your writing style would make for a pretty entertaining book on film. WesleyDodds10:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dan, Thank you for your comment about the Simple English Wikipedia Film Noir article. I am writing to you because an article I started (Quality television) has been slated for deletion, and I am hoping to enlist some support when the deletion vote comes up on April 16th. After heavily re-doing the Art Film page, I came across a writer, Kristin Thompson who argued that there is a genre of television that shares some of the same traits as art films (complex, ambiguous plots, psychological realism, etc). I started an Art Television article, citing Kristin Thompson and another television scholar, Jason Mittell (a prof at a US university). A few days ago, Jason Mittell proposed the deletion of my article on the grounds that it just rehashed Kristin Thompson's book chapter. I have been trying to improve the article in the past few days. I changed the title to "quality television," because there is more of a consensus over that term than "art television." If you have any suggested changes, I would appreciate it!Nazamo20:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And on the topic of good work, I have to thank you for hardboiled. Your work, the 'noir fiction' section in particular, is well and pleasantly written while remaining effective and appropriate; this combination is tragically rare on Wikipedia, and it's good to see it. --Kizor12:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Film noir. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. --Orange Mike19:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you rated the article GA, since you're the main editor you're not allowed to do that. I nominated it for GA for you. Incidentally I put the maintained tag on the article's talk page for you. No worries it should pass GA easily. Aaron Bowen21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for inspiring me to find out more about the origin of the term. But you must admit, Cone throwing his perfect game on the same day that Larsen threw out the ceremonial first pitch to Yogi is a great example of Yankees "karma". And I don't even like the Yankees. d:) Wahkeenah09:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand about hating the Yankees. And it's fair to say their "karma" has deserted them in recent years. They have become chokers. It's a shame, isn't it? :) Yes, Lanigan said "of Chicago Americans" (with no "the" interpolated) which is a shorter way of saying "of Chicago American League", and leaving out the article "the" as customary for brevity. The term "Nationals" or "Americans" was fairly frequently used in the early 1900s to designate teams for a city with more than one entry. I've seen that style used clear into the 1950s at least. That's where "Boston Americans" and "New York Americans" came from as designations for the teams later known as "Red Sox" and "Yankees". And All-Star Game results were sometimes given as simply "Americans" vs. "Nationals". Team nicknames were not marketing tools so much then as they are now, although that concept was beginning to emerge, hence the Federal League entry called "Chicago Federals" or "ChiFeds" in 1914 (not a true nickname, just a designation) and "Chicago Whales" in 1915 (an official nickname). There is a tendency to try to retrofit modern usage into old-time usage, and it doesn't always work. For example, it is sometimes said that the American Association team of the 1880s were "the original Mets", as opposed to the National League entry, the Giants. Well, yes and no. They are often referred retroactively as "the Metropolitans", but in the newspaper standings they were simply called "Metropolitan" as in "Metropolitan Baseball Club" in the AA, as opposed to "New York" in the NL. Thus those teams were also called the "Metropolitans" and the "New Yorks". The latter also acquired the nickname "Giants", which eventually stuck as the official nickname. Designations like "the New Yorks", "the Chicagos", "the Bostons", etc., faded once the two-team cities became prevalent and rendered such designations ambiguous. At that point, "Nationals" and "Americans" came to be appended to the city name. It's likely that "Yankees" came from "Americans", first as a headline writer's variation, and then eventually as an official nickname once "Highlanders" no longer made sense. ("Lowlanders" could have worked.) Wahkeenah10:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing citations
Hey, I posted the cited section that DaddyKindsoul is arguing about on the heavy metal talk page. So yeah . . . I don't know, do you have a problem with it? Leave your thoughts on the talk page. In related news, the same user has now moved on to alternative rock and is now insisting grunge as a whole, Pearl Jam, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers (in that order) aren't alt-rock and that the UK section should go first because the British bands of the 80s were more notable. Because he says so. So . . . yeah. Got anything you want me to help you with? Any reverts will be made with good intentions and puppy-dog gumdrops in mind. WesleyDodds10:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:JulesDassin.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:JulesDassin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr05:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot18:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warsaw pact
Something for the future: in two months or so (ideally when we complete our current projects), Ceoil and I are going to team up and work on Joy Division until that motherfucker is FA status. You want in on this? Huh? DO YA?!?! This timeframe will at least give everyone time to gather up sources (I seem to have misplaced my issue of Spin with the article on the final days of Ian Curtis' life, though. Goddammit.). WesleyDodds18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Researching about power metal and the intricacies of the LA glam scene and getting yelled at when the best black metal sources I could muster aren't considered "truthful" enough compared to a fan site wasn't something I was totally intent on getting into myself, but we can honestly say we've made a better article than the metal fanboys have even tried to make before we came along on the FAR revenge posse. That's something to be conceited and self-congratulatory about right there. In fact I might have to give your ass another Barnstar.
Even thought Hawkwind had one of the most metal men to have ever lived in its ranks (dude, his name is Kilmister and that the real part of his name) they were always more psych than metal. That's kind of why they kicked Lemmy out. Well, that and the drugs. Which is funny when you consider it was the mid 1970s; they probably kicked him out because he was doing the wrong drugs. WesleyDodds07:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if a point I've realized for over a year is clear to everyone on the article talk page: Alternative rock is a very hard page to write for. Sources are patchy, inadequate, or nonexistent. Journalists fixate on the wrong aspects ("If it's called 'alternative' what exactly is it an alternative to?" They've asked this question about four dozen times more than necessary) and many of the artist hate being labeled it. You can't imagine how happy I was when Our Band Could Be Your Life came out in 2001 to help fill out the gaps in the genre's development. It honestly takes me months to find decent sources. And pretty much everything being debated on the talk page right now (terminology, scope, what should be in the article and what isn't notable enough, etc.) is all stuff I've already asked myself over a year ago, which I've either already come to a conclusion on or was so frustrated I put it on a boilerplate in the back of my mind. This is why I haven't taken the page beyond GA level.
But then again, up until now I've been the only one working on it and it's great having other people finally somewhat interested in the makeup of the article. Ignoring all the merging/rearranging/US vs. UK/what came first hoo-ah, you got any thoughts on things we can do to make it a better Wiki article? One of my first thoughts is to mention a few bands in the lead section, like we do for punk rock and heavy metal music. WesleyDodds17:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I understand the whole "is it a genre?" mentality a lot of people have, including you. Many of these styles have no overlapping traits aside from having roots in punk or other alternative styles, and originating and/or existing outside of the mainstream. If anything, it's more a grouping of (more)-clearly defined subgenre than a proper genre. Unfortunately for me and you, it's been treated as a proper genre since at least 1990, so we have to treat it as one.
I was actually about to including "indie" as one of the alternate (pun!) terms in the lead, but I realized it looked awkward. Possibly a footnote? The thing that strikes me is that while the motherland (speaking of which, remember how we refused to pay them taxes and kicked them the hell out of here? Man, that was awesome . . .) prefers to call it "indie", the phrase "alternative rock" isn't unknown over there. It's used by British authors in a couple of the sources cited in the article, there's my little HMV anecdote on the talk page, and hell, CloudNine and Ceoil (who's actually Irish, mind) are obviously familiar with it. I mean, they do read our books over there, after all. Dudes like Daniel Ash of Bauhaus and Depceche Mode identify themselves explicitly as alternative acts. The British "indie" isn't necessarily indie rock, which is best defined by the Allmusic parameters of being alt-rock that sayed underground when the genre became big. The British "indie" (which often neglects the "rock" suffix) refers to the entire genre, including grunge, Britpop, Madchester, and shoegaze; Nirvana and Oasis are called indie over there. Which is why it's ultimately a synonym, and why I think spliting the page would be loony.
Now, for bands in the lead: I'm thinking it should say something like "During the 1980s, bands like R.E.M. and the Smiths defined . . .", or "While a few bands, like R.E.M. and The Cure, broke through during the 1980s . . ." Many of the 80s bands are too obscure for the average reader to care, no matter how much I think it would be cool to list guys like Sonic Youth and the Replacements in the lead. I think the one band we have to mention no matter what is Nirvana. as for post-Nirvana bands? I'd advocate listing two or three of the best-known/important: Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, Nine Inch Nails, Oasis, Blur, Radiohead. Take your pick.
Oh, and some sources to look at: I found this article by Entertainment Weekly from 1992 that tries to define the genre (There's at least two subgenres that absolutely don't belong, though; try and guess which ones!! Also note the broad definition of grunge in the article). I've already cited it once in the article. Additionally, it might interest you to take a look at the Afterward in the American version of Rip It Up and Start Again. A sign of how pathetic a lot of sources on the genre are is that an add-on to a book about post-punk is way more informative on the topic than a lot of the books available that are supposed to deal with the topic. I've already cited most of what I thought was relevant in the article, but it's an interesting read nonetheless, especially if you liked the rest of the book. WesleyDodds13:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I more accurately meant "all those words in the parentheses made the phrase look too long and ungainly when I had the text in preview mode", but if you have no problem with it, we can roll with that. WesleyDodds16:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another tidbit: here's the earliest mention of alternative rock in Entertainment Weekly[1], when they announced the nominees for the 1990 Grammys. If you're interested, I can provide you with a bunch of sources I've gathered but have yet to find a way to integrate into the article by e-mailing you. WesleyDodds16:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the earliest mention I can certainly find from the time it came into common use as a genre term. "Alternative", of course, as a mere word and not a genre label simply means "another available choice"; that's why I personally try to ignore any use of "alternative" before 1991 unless it is explicitly clear the word is being used as a noun to describe a genre. Lucky it's used unambiguously in that article. If you search the EW.com engine by date you'll find the term used quite often from that point onwards. In an interesting contrast, I picked up the Spin retrospective book 20 Years of Alternative Music (which also covers hip-hop, metal, electronica, and Madonna; I'm figuring they just thought it was a nifty title) and when they use the term in 1991 in an article about the first Lollapalooza they act like it came out of nowhere. I'm also aware that in 1989 a tour called the Monsters of Alternative Rock (apparently a play on the metal-centric Monster of Rock festival) featuring New Order, Public Image Ltd. (keep in mind this wasn't awesome post-punk PiL, but late 80s kinda blah New Order-ish dance-rock PiL), and the Sugarcubes occured, but I've yet to find a hard source that mentions it. WesleyDodds17:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. One problem is the earlier we go, the more "alternative" is a term that means "stuff college radio plays" rather than a definable music genre. For example, Suzanne Vega does not belong to the alternative rock genre as it is commony understood, but does she fit under the broad context of artists that were primarily played on "alternative" college radio? Certainly. I'm less concerned about the earliest usage of the term we can find (which is nevertheless revealing and hella interesting) than in the use of the word and what it has come to mean and entail over the years. WesleyDodds20:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I've never actually bothered to use Google Book search. I'll e-mail you some stuff shortly, but here's another topic for thought: can we find any more stylistic characteristics for the genre aside from its association with underground art, its roots in punk and punk forms (hardcore and post-punk), and the fact that, judging by their lyrics, a lot of the artists seem to be miserable bastards (I love how the 1990 EW link makes a point of this)? WesleyDodds18:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)
The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
You have been blocked for 20 hours; Greetings, DCGeist; unfortunately, your latest contributions to the encyclopedia have been harmful to Wikipedia, and you have been blocked from editing for a period of 20 hours. The reason behind this is: WP:3RR violation at McCarthyism. Hopefully when you return your attitude to the encylopedia will have improved, and you will be prepared to contribute contructively.
If you feel this block is not justified, you may: (1) email me by clicking here, or otherwise at anthony.cfc@gmail.com; (2) add the text {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page, which you can still edit.
Blocks at Wikipedia are not a punishment - rather, they are a period to reflect, an opportunity to show understanding and and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter pass and be learned from. Wikipedians, Administrators and the Community have a real desire for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing; please bear this in mind for the duration of your block.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
As the blocking administrator has gone offline, I append our email correspondence as my argument for unblocking: <moved below by reviewing admin>
Decline reason:
While not expressing a view on the appropriateness (or not) of the block, I must decline to unblock you for procedural reasons. Per WP:APB, unblocks require agreement by the blocking admin, a (very rare) override by other admins in the case that the block was clearly unjustifiable, or an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. The correspondence below indicates that the block was not clearly unjustifiable, although certainly questionable. In this situation, since an ArbCom appeal is ruled out due to the shortness of the block, we would require agreement by the blocking admin to unblock you, and you have already engaged them in discussion about this. There's not much more I can do here, but see my comment below. — Sandstein18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
DCGeist to AGK:
I'm not clear why I've been blocked here. I reverted on this article twice:
1st revert: [2]
2nd revert: [3]
All previous edits were good faith efforts to resolve differences of opinion raised in both the article and on the Talk page by VanBrigglePottery and RedSpruce. Note that in the midst of that series of edits, VanBrigglePottery expressed appreciation of my efforts: [4], before turning to disagreement. Note also, underscoring my good faith efforts in this process, after my first revert noted above, I restored a significant edit of VanBrigglePottery's ([5]), then edited for style while retaining the substance introduced by VBP ([6]). I request that the block imposed on me be eliminated or reduced.
Best, Dan
AGK to DCGeist:
The block shall not be reduced further - in light of your relative civility (e.g., in edit summaries) I reduced the block by two hours. However, the fact remains that:
You violated WP:3RR;
You have already been blocked once before for a 3RR violation.
Taking these into account, I am declining to unblock; hopefully when you return you will be able to refrain from reverting other editors, and will be able to learn how to discuss rather than undo.
Kind regards, AGK
DCGeist to AGK:
I remain unclear on how I violated WP:3RR. As far as I can see, I reverted twice and then left it at the version preferred by the other editor. Please explain how and at exactly what point I committed this 3RR violation so I don't cross the line again.
Best, Dan
AGK to DCGeist:
As requested, I have sourced the four diffs that show your revert at the article McCarthyism:
1. A [7]
2. B [8]
3. C [9]
4. D [10]
These four diffs plainly show the grounds under which I withdrew your editing privileges. However, am I to interpret this [11] as a self-revert, to prevent WP:3RR?
Kind regards, AGK
DCGeist to AGK:
Hi,
Great. This clears several things up.
"A" ([12]) is not a revert at all--I was still in the midst of an editing process and was unaware of VBG's edit of 17:25. I was working off of my edit of 17:22 and concentrating on the style of the end of the graf (as my edit summary was meant to suggest)--over which there is no substantive dispute, as far as I'm aware. This edit did, as it happens, restore a word in the first sentence that I only later discovered VBG took great issue with (and which I then did attempt to address in Talk; see [13] and [14]).
"B" ([15]) is very clearly not a revert--in fact, in this edit I'm restoring a substantive point of VBG's I'd inadvertently eliminated in my previous edit. It was he who wanted to make the point that there were indeed some spies in the government; in this edit, I'm restoring precisely that point he wanted to make.
"C" ([16]) is, again, very clearly not a revert--it's a purely stylistic edit: "suspicions" was occuring very often in the text; I recast the sentence to remove it as redundant and introduce the word "subversives," a significant term in this context. I can't imagine any substantive debate over this edit and, indeed, none has ever been raised.
"D" ([17]) is plainly a revert.
I hope all of the above makes sense to you. Please let me know if anything remains unclear.
Best, Dan
(note from uninvolved editor) I have reviewed the edit history of the article, and agree that DCGeist had not violated 3RR. The edit warring was unfortunate, but to block this longtime good editor was excessive. I recommend that the block be lifted. --Elonka07:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment:' On further reflection, I think that the block was not required, but was justifiable (though barely) within admin discretion. Even assuming arguendo DCGeist had (just) observed the formal boundaries of WP:3RR, this is not a licence for overaggressive editing, for which admins may block. Nonetheless, blocks are preventative and not punitive. I would support an unblock if DCGeist agrees to edit more carefully in the future. Sandstein18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The matter has been satifactorily resolved with the following communication:
AGK to DCGeist:
Right, upon having reviewed the block, I have concluded this: I was wrong, and I apologise. It was one of the occasions when you're so sure you're correct, and yet I was wrong.
My utmost apologies both for my being wrong in this matter, and also for taking so long to apologise, but I had to make sure that I was definitely wrong (even though I've only been a sysop of 1 week, I've already had these huge tales of how I was wrong in my block, although they were all from editors much less trustworthy than yourself).
Hi Dan, I recently saw this article went on FAR and thought I'd try to save it. I've done a lot of work removing POV, adding info, and adding references but it still needs some copy-editing. Given your skills I was wondering if you could look it over and give it a run-through. Quadzilla9907:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hei DCGeist,
Camping Cosmos could be considered als a midnight movie for four reasons:
1. it is definitely a counterculture film, against the reigning classical European movies
2. it was a cheap production
3. it has become a cult movie
4. it is something like a Belgian surrealist film
It is very common in atmosphere with The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and made at the same time (mid nineties)
at a moment that the definition of midnight movie has changed.
Please, could you reconsider of placing Camping Cosmos as a midnight movie?
I am for some reason disappointed that it took me a few seconds longer to pick up the Bon Jovi reference than it did the Tom Petty one. Does that mean the terrorists have already won? WesleyDodds11:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
dboard
Made my arguement on the discussion board. See now.
FBO
Nice work on Film Booking Offices of America, you're pumping out FA quality material like a Mill. Incidentally, Thorpe survived FAR. It's on the LOCE list and I can wait for them to copy-edit it, so consider that request null. Keep up the solid work. Quadzilla9921:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you dot es dot
I just expect Americans to catch up with the rest of the English-speaking world, which universally uses "US", as for NATO, PBS, etc. An increasing number of Americans have seen the light, no matter what the "authoritative" sources say. Apart from consistency with other initialisms and other English speakers, it's just so much neater. But if it's a religion to you, I can't argue. Tony08:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Plain English people promote "ie" and "eg", yet I was howled down by other professional editors for doing that. I think the clincher is that they're lower-case letters. On "US", my hope is that individual writers don't get dragged with the flow, but are at the forefront of trends, especially those that are progressing inevitably through the language and have clear advantages per se. Tony07:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dan, I was looking at the B movie daughter articles and have a suggestion. I think they would look better if you removed the self ref from the lead. Also the leads could use expansion. I know you're not really going for FA on any of those and have probably thought of this but just thought I'd let you know. They could look like this:
From its roots in the silent era through Hollywood's Golden Age of the 1930s and 1940s, B movies...
Or if you're not happy starting an article with the word from:
The History of B movies during the Golden age of Hollywood comprises..."
I was debating between that and "Time to shove off matey". I guess he could actually believe the US had nothing too do with the origins of metal but I kind of doubt it. Quadzilla9917:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All you have to do is stop defacing tags Geistcore. I know you hate punk rock, but is there really a need to target it like that? - The Daddy09:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.
Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!
Please explain what this sentence means in the punk rock article: The Kingsmen, a garage band from Portland, Oregon, had a breakout hit with their 1963 cover of "Louie, Louie," cited as "punk rock's defining ur-text. It doesn't seem to make any sense. What does "punk rock's defining ur-text" mean? When I click on Ur- it says "Ur- is a German prefix meaning "prot(o)-", "first", "oldest", "original" when used with a noun. In combination with an adjective, it can be translated as the intensifier "very"." Spylab16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)
The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Just a quicky, no response needed if the edit's okay: While it was right to note the League of Nations and the UN in the World Wars section, I went in and rewrote the latter so as to overlap less with the Foreign Affairs section, specifically mentioning "IGOs", Yalta, and Bretton Woods, to hint at but not specifically state that a number of bodies were created at the end of the war, some only tangentially related to the UN. MrZaiustalk17:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: United States
And who are you? You nor your ilk have demonstrated clear reasoning for removing citations, in direct contravention of wikipolicy, and I can't fathom nor comment on the confused collective stance you believe may support such actions, but refrain from commenting on my talk page again. Given the fact that I helped to build the current lead, despite your personal attacks, I will be back later to re-add the citation. Corticopia02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Member States
Thanks for updating the style for the Member States section in the United States article. I personally hope it stays since it emphasizes that the U.S. is a union of many states - like the EU but somewhat stable. :-) Cheers. -DevinCook15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corticopia was blocked for making 3 reverts in 17 minutes on the Canada article. The thread about him on WP:ANI was mentioned in the blocking admins comments. See Here for more information.
Dan, just a note to say that the article is significantly better than it was last time, and I appreciate your and others' efforts to improve it. I suspect that the unpopularity of the US and the widespread international resentment of its behaviour under the current so-called president is partly behind the hard line that critics have taken in all of the attempts at promotion. And let's face it, it could be put through a copy-editing wringer still, and be subject to re-assessment in terms of what it includes and excludes. Tony13:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smile
†Sir James Paul† has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I would also like to thank you for helping out wikipedia as much as you have. Please keep up the good work:) Have a nice week and God bless:)--†Sir James Paul†05:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just think about it; roughly 12,000 people visit the US article every day (or was it week?... it's a lot either way). Even if only 10% approach the article with a serious interest in the subject - that's still 1,200 people. And even if only 1% actually read the culture section, for example, that would still be 120 people! (That's a Boeing 737!) Needless to say I think improving and maintaining the US article is an endeavor well worth while. Thank you for your great contributions and, as I've said in the barnstar, keep up the good work! Signaturebrendel21:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fact Tag
There is information currently in the article I request a citation for and you've removed the tag without providing it. Your explanation for removing it makes no sense as you seem to be putting the burden of evidence on me. Please read WP:V. If you'd like the sentence to stay in the article you're required to provide one reliable source that reports that rumour. Doesn't matter which one it is, as long as its reliable. If you can't provide one, and the text makes it sound like no reliable sources have commented on this "rumour" at all, then it cannot be present in the article. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. I'm retagging the statement, please provide a citation or remove it from the article if its inherently unverifiable.--Crossmr01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If its so factual, provide a verifiable source. Otherwise please do not continue to edit against WP:V. The statement currently fails that which is a very clear policy.--Crossmr02:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its interesting that you claim the source disseminates an unsubstantiated rumour, yet object to the rumour itself being tagged with a fact or original research tag.--Crossmr03:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. . I've made several comments to which you've failed to respond. My suggestion is to start communicating because you're violating one policy and about to violate another.--Crossmr03:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
has vandalized the child sexual abuse article.[18] This has since been reverted, but in light of the final warning you placed on this user's page, I thought I would give you a heads-up. Note Icedevil14's edit summary in the diff cited above; seems to be of a piece with the other violations. Cheers, ZeroZ08:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime I get lonely for the auld days. Almost tempted to vandelsie the punkbox just for the hell of it. It's been aufuly quite for some strange reason these last 3 weeks. Ceoil21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Income
Sorry to respond so late: The $39,336 for both sexes comes from this forum (where you can find all personal income data for 2005) and this data shet. I will try and add a short mention of why the changing role of domestic servants is important in the next couple of days. I have recently been quite busy writing my Income inequality in the United States article - which is now up and running. As for household per capita thing, I still haven't looked into the matter yet-but I think omitting that data for now isn't such a bad thing as the mean overall per capita income is nearly identical. Regards, Signaturebrendel17:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Civil
I might remind you to read WP:CIVIL. You've made a point of being extremely uncivil in relation to this article. So far you've made a point of responding to other editors, but not me, even though I've made several attempts at communication with you, and reverting without discussion. Also read WP:OWN. You do not own the McCarthy article, and even if something has been discussed, that doesn't mean that is the end of it. Articles are not static and constantly change. I'm not the only one who expressed concern over the length of the article. You may wish to try examining things before you start assuming bad faith. The only previous section I disputed, several editors supported removing, and its now removed. Articles can be improved by removal of unnecessary information, not just expansion. Your disregard for the article, its stability, and its history is evident You have a history of edit warring over that article and reverting without discussion. My only history is the removal of a section supported by consensus. --Crossmr14:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and there is nothing bad faith about using maintenance tags. They were created to be used. If this is your idea of well debated Talk:Joseph_McCarthy/Archive_6#Popular_culture, that hardly passes as "well debated". Unless there is another section hiding in the archives somewhere under a non-obvious name. If any of these points are really integral to giving information about McCarthy they can be worked in to the article. The only other editor supporting it in that "debate" makes note of a couple of references he finds particularly important, but again this section is collecting random cruft that doesn't really give any useful information about McCarthy.--Crossmr14:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have any history of edit warring over this article? No. How many reverts did I make? 1. How many did you make? 3. Who tried to communicate in a meaningful manner? Me. Who has been banned for edit warring over this subject? You. Many editors make mistakes when they first start editing wikipedia. Some people learn from those, others just continue on with the behaviour because they think they're right and know best. If you want go on about good faith, you may want to try assuming a little. Rather than pussh you to a fourth revert I sought outside opinion.--Crossmr14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who the hell is User:Terry Tolkin? And why are you edit warring (in a nice way) with him? Could you please add some insight to this subject at the relevant place on WP:COIN? Thank you in advance for your help in clearing up this matter. Bearian21:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Roy Cohn book
Dan, I don't want to beat this subject to death on the McCarthy talk page so I thought I would ask you here. Are you telling me that Roy Cohn's book can not be used as a reliable source on anything? And by that I mean, we can't use anything quoted in the book like the Congressional Record or something that Cohn says that conforms to what other biographers have said? I checked over WP:RS and Cohn's book seems to adhere to it. A biographer does not have to be one by trade in order to perform a biography. It is assumed that if there are errors, the fact-checkers will take care of that. This is the basis of WP:VERIFY. If you disagree, would you kindly point out the exact phrase in RS which precludes the use of Cohn's book? I would like to use the book and I don't have to do battle just to use info in the book. If you haven't read this book, you're are really missing an excellent read. There's a lot of great info in it about the personal side of the events surrounding McCarthy and his staff. Thank you for your time and help. Jtpaladin13:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The June 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams202007:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be here now
Ceoil and I have been working on this and he has brought it here. Would appreciate a look over from you along with the always-amusing aside remarks. By the way, I hear the illness has gone into remission for a month because it's hasn't been playing nice. WesleyDodds11:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alger Hiss
I'd like to invite you to mediation with respect to whether it should be stated in the introduction of this article that a majority of historians believe Hiss was a Soviet spy (or, in the alternative, that the evidence is "strong", without qualification). This should be a last resort but I've already written thousands of words on this in the Talk pages with apparently no resolution and you don't seem to be interested in further discussion. I would happily let the issue go if an independent mediator heard me out on the question but nonetheless disagreed. If you have other suggestions for productive advancement on this matter please advise.Bdell55522:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joy Division
We've started. Feel free to completely mess around with the text on that temp page whenever you have the time to dedicate to it. Some sources are located on the temp page talk page. WesleyDodds06:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Hi, Dan. I noticed the edit you made on "Good Night and Good Luck," the revert of BreadBasket's edit. Looking it over, do you not agree that the BreadBasket is basically saying exactly the same thing as the version you reverted to, but without a lot of unneeded verbiage? Thanks. Am-A-Day-Yoz00:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response
I didn't see on the talk page that it had been resolved, and I intensely disliked your edit summaries toward me. Thank you for the compliment of my past work, and the war is over. --Golbez06:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got a little question regarding what might be the correct designation for some of the early Dickson/Edison formats. I've stated my opinion on the matter, but clearly you are far more familiar. How are things going, btw? Hope you've been having a good summer! :) Girolamo Savonarola00:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverts and dispute
Seeing your picture I remember that we used to get along. I apologize for being being short.
You have justified your latest reverts of my edits citing discussions on the talk page. However, there has been no mention of "percieved" or "In music" on Talk:Tone cluster. As such you're reverts are unexplained. I will not redo my edits so as not to provoke an edit war or violation of WP:3RR until we have reached some sort of personal resolution. I believe that you are evaluating my edits based on your recent dislike of me and not on their own merits. I request from you an explination of you're reverts and will attempt to apologize or make it up to you in a manner you would like. Hyacinth21:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use Image:BarkerMackaillSills.jpg
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:BarkerMackaillSills.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C08:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot18:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Harrisonl.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast01:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
Thanks for uploading Image:TargetsPoster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot01:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colonial war of independence
A succesful colonial war of independence is a war where the original inhabitants of a colony regain control over their territories. Examples abound, like India from the British, Algeria from France, Indonesia from the Dutch, the Philippines from the USA. If the Indians would have thrown out the colonizers, such a war would have been won. In the actual USA history, the colonizers just seceded from their country of origin. Speaking of a "first succesful colonial war of independence" is a POV and bitter insult to the original inhabitants of America. −Woodstone10:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is the context in which the information stated inappropriate?? Explain this to me and then i may decide against reverting the changes you so frivolously removed. Cheers... i guess.... and P.S. and when explianing your quite out-of-the-ordinary behaviour, try to be a little less callous about it. (Murchy06:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
HAHA lol, cheers for that, umm.... quick question, how do you revert a mistake you've made on a page.... like accidently deleting something?? (Murchy07:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
And another quick question. How do I upload an image onto my page? Like from mi computer to my page.? Cheers. (Murchy08:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I've updated the page substantially if you wnt to check it out, see what all of your hard work has accomplished. Thanks again. (Murchy10:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Daddy Kindsoul, you will be blocked from editing. The Daddy has discouraged you from vandalising the user boxes once, next time you will be banned, The Daddy features on the memberlist as "Deathrocker"[19], which redirects to the users current user name. - The Daddy21:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm
Okay, no need to edit Kindsoul's page in that way. I know the "You've got messages" is annoying and I believe that it was almost outlawed (but I can't remember where) but just ignore it. Knowing the way this sort of thing goes, it'll escalate to some kind of WP:AN/I stuff. So, let's just try to chill out, if you don't mind? The Rambling Man21:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, he is screwing around with my main userpage and removing my project boxes too. God knows what his problem is. - The Daddy21:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, User:Videmus Omnia is within his rights to nominate an image for deletion - he gave a reason for the deletion and therefore, the most you can do is respond to that reason with an argument to keep the image. You should assume good faith - i.e. don't accuse a user of stalking you simply because he does something you disagree with. Just because an image happens to be in a featured article when it was promoted does not mean that that image is immune from all future nominations for deletion. As for the accusation you posted on his user talk page - I suggest that you read WP:OWN, as he has suggested, and also refrain from making uncivil comments like this: "Whatever your motivation, your behavior is a clear and serious affront to the Wikipedia mission, its community, and its spirit." ugen6403:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are in danger of violating the 3 revert rule, which states that users cannot make more than 3 reverts of good faith edits to the same page within 24 hours. If you violate this policy, you may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours. ugen6404:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, err, seeing as you are an "innocent babe", you can be forgiven for not knowing that "bad faith" edits do indeed exist. For example, you could revert vandalism to your heart's content without violating the 3 revert rule. (seriously, the only reason I warned you is because you have to be warned before another admin can take action on a 3rr violation) ugen6404:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, Dan. While I understand this is all frustrating for you, you can get a bit . . . pointed when such a situation arises. Best to ask for opinions on the topic from other editors familiar with fair use and see how they view your arguments for the inclusion of the image. And another thing: while I for one appreciate your humor, it might not translate well for others online, so try to be clear and concise with your responses. Save your bile for the real a**holes, if you get me. WesleyDodds04:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main priorities right now are two FARs. I hope to have "Hey Jude" done by Friday, and Grunge music by next week. If there's anything you can bring to the table, that'd be much appreciated. After that, it's back to Joy Division, which I mentioned before. Ceoil set up a temp page where we've done some reworking of the article, and this weekend I'm going to pick up some books from my brother for sourcing. God willing, we can make that FA by the time Control comes out in the fall (and possibly get it front page). Ceoil and I are also teaming up for Loveless, of which he has made it quite clear he believes is the greatest album in the history of existence. Alternative rock is certainly in the back of my mind; a few days ago I expanded the lead. An editor removed the sound clips, so I think my first priority there is working some back in. After that, I want to work in some subgenre descriptiosn like we have in the prose of punk rock and heavy metal music (I figure people should at least have an idea of what defines goth and so forth). Finally, my long-term project is R.E.M., which is GA now and I plan to take to FA status by the end of the year. In a completely different field, I've been editing Batman slowly for months to help it adhere to current FA standards, and I'm almost done with that. WesleyDodds05:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Repeated incivility on WP:ANI and elsewhere, repeatedly removing notices from images against policy after multiple warnings, blanking IFD entries, etc.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
Run (baseball)
I understand you removed an edit of Run (baseball) that clarified the runner had to reach home before three outs are recorded. Your Edit summary comment is that this is redundant of already linked term "safely". I would appreciate it if you could clarify that. I have read the Out (baseball) article (which safely wikilinks to) several times and I cannot find where it states that a run doesn't count if there are three outs. That article talks about when a batter and runner are considered out; however, a runner reaching home after three outs is never out, he just scores too late for the run to count. Especially for those who do not know the game of baseball well, specifically stating "before three outs are recorded" is a reasonable and correct addition to the article. Thanks. Truthanado23:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Best wishes.
Thanks again for your gracious apology. I also wanted to indicate my respect for your skills at article authorship, especially in your ability to bring articles to featured status. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help you by obtaining copyrighted material under free license, which is what I mainly specialize in. With respect - Videmus OmniaTalk00:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Random Smile!
WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
If you think you and Vidor had a battle over the "trivia" question, check out the tedious discussion I had with some IP address the other day. That stupid debate stretched out over 5 hours, when he could have taken 10 minutes and just made the citation, instead of being deliberately obstinate, which I think was part of his game. The net result was good, though, as it fixed the bad arithmetic that none of us caught. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?09:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 180,000 words is about what it seemed, but the issue seems to be settled and the IP address has retreated back into his New Jersey swamp. I don't normally monitor Images for Deletion (because it would get me too angry), but that one deletionist that I keep clashing with really gets on my nerves... and I think your images turned up the same day that mine did, so I just voted for your images on principle. To me the wikipedia image policy is extremely obfuscated. The fair use issue should boil down to a simple test: "Where's the harm?" Notice how I brought up the copyright issue and they got indignant, "Who's talking about copyright?" Well, if there's no copyright issue, then there's no issue. The deletionists are zealots who interpret the policy the way they feel like, and use it as a club. Would that they would actually contribute something... such as going out and finding the allegedly free images they claim "should be available". In the case of your illustrations, they were public domain, and the alleged fair use dispute was actually just a content dispute by another of these zealots who have the notion that too many pictures are a bad thing. There's just no end to this nonsense. Thanks fer listenin'. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?10:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indie vs. alternative
This discussion might be of interest to you. It's funny given the previous discussions we've gone through. The editor is largely arguing about this consensus change from a few months back which I'm trying to explain is A). Not uncited; it's mentioned in the body of the article; and B). Was added largely to placate the Brits and our mutual Irish friend. WesleyDodds02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The August 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot03:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That IP address is back, with typical inflammatory remarks, obvious trolling behavior seeking a reaction. I recommend that we make no further direct response to that user, as it only feeds into his game. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?16:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)
The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
I am familiar with the deletion review process; there is no need for you to educate me about how to participate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that User:Coredesat is also familiar with our processes, as is User:Nv8200p. None of our deletion process proceeds by counting votes; things can be deleted when a majority of comments at the deletion discussion are in favor of keeping, or kept when the majority of comments favor deletion. The closing admin is supposed to weigh the strength of the arguments and the sitewide consensus embodied in our policies. We can discuss at deletion review whether the closing admin was correct. But it's not right to suggest that admins have no discretion at all when closing deletion debates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you notify multiple editors about a deletion review, as you did around 6:50 this morning, you should notify all editors who participated in the original debate. Notifying only the editors who spoke in favor of keeping might be construed as canvassing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are very right about one thing -- I am much less of an image-discussion "regular" than you are, so I'm not surprised that wording struck as clumsy, even though my rationale is not so. The severity of my tone was motivated by my surprise at the clear nature of the case.
The point of image policy failed was NFCC #8, significance. I also believe the image's use, given the context, was probably not even legally "fair." The supporting text for the image in Carrell's article was striking spare:
"In 1999, he became a correspondent on The Daily Show, appearing in recurring sketches like "Even Stevphen" (opposite Stephen Colbert) and "Produce Pete with Steve Carell". He remained a regular on the show until 2004."
That's it -- no critical commentary whatsoever. There was no analysis of the significance of the show to Carrell's career (or to Colbert's, in his article.) There is barely any analysis at all. As such, the image was clearly decorative. Even the law, less strict than the Foundation's policy, demands some of level of commentary analyzing the significance of an image before it can be included under fair use. "Carrell was on the show in these years, playing these parts," a rough paraphrase of the content justifying the significance of this image, was probably legally inadequate, much less adequate for the Foundation's purposes.
What was needed, legally speaking, was something like, "The Daily Show was a watershed moment in Carrell's career, garnering critical praise (source) and popular acclaim (source). Carrell attributes the Daily Show with having exposed him to national audience (source), and in particular credits fellow cast member, Stephen Colbert, with having helped to hone his comedic timing through work together, shown at right (source)."
What was actually present was, "Carrell was on the show. Now, a pretty picture" (paraphrase for comedic effect.) I'm sure you see the difference.
The reason I mention sourcing is that some astute commenter in the DRV pointed to the insufficiency and asked, "Would a sentence or two saying that the Daily Show was important to his career be enough?" The correct answer, given by the image's deleter, was "if it is sourced..." I have no reason to make any blanket pronouncements, but I think it would be very wise for every fair use image to be supported for inclusion by some sourced text, yes. That you find this usual has me a little worried, but you do see more images than I do, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
As I say, the harshness of my closing statement arose from my great surprise that anyone would seek to base an image's inclusion on such minimal text. That is highly risky from a legal point-of-view, and something the foundation obviously cannot tolerate. I agree with you that NFCC #8 doesn't do the greatest job of expressing this plainly, but critical commentary referring to an image within article is a key condition for legal fair use, and there wasn't any. Best wishes, Xoloz00:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How to upload images
I noticed you left a comment explaining to User talk:Murchy how to upload images. You left out a major part of the story, which judging from your images upload you don't seem to understand yourself. I could spend millions of hours trying to manually type this out in every case, so instead I'll use a template:
Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!
Please see that you create an account there and try to upload some of your old images there. More importantly, pass on the word. It just doesn't seem to be getting through to people, even those who have been here for years. I'm trying to work on system change as well, but hopefully if enough individuals get the message and spread it, it will also help. Richard00108:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joy
User:RyanFreisling@ has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I received an email from the copyright holder verifying that the copyright has not expired on this image. I have put a copy of the email on the image talk page and tagged the image itself for deletion again. I would support reopening the DRV so that it can run its course, perhaps moving it to the next day's page so it is open an extra 24 hours. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until we get a opinion from a copyright lawyer that the copyright is expired, it's prudent and reasonable to assume Time, Inc. is not grossly incompetent, they did renew their copyrights, and the image is still copyrighted. It's inappropriate for editors to investigate on their own and declare that an image is public domain when there are clear claims that the image is copyrighted (in this case, both the website where the image was obtained and the email I received make such claims). That's what lawyers are for. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, we now have an email from a Time representative specifically stating they claim copyright on the image; it will take more than volunteer investigation for us to treat that claim as invalid. If you would like, please feel free to reopen the DRV. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you can get Time to verify the image is public domain then that would be fine. Until then, since I sent an email to their designated address for image licensing and the response was that the image is copyrighted, we must assume they are telling the truth. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion of copyright on the Time site isn't the copyright notice at the bottom - it's the link to a page with information on how to apply to license the images. That is at least an implicit assertion that they have some control over the redistribution. I realize that they can claim to control redistribution even if the copyright is expired; but the presence of the licensing page does show that they make some claim that reuse must be authorized by them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be the most interested party in the article Midnight movie. I am letting you know of my intent to make changes to the article in both content, structure and possibly format. I hope we can work together on the article in good faith. I have known about the article since I started on Wikipedia and have been wanting to work on it for some time. Yes I am relatively new to Wiki, still under a year here I believe, but that only means I have less edits. I am serious about learning and editing to raise the quality of articles. We have similer interests in films. It is my hope that we can work together. I can only apologise if you mistook my intentions from my first edits and my posts on the talk page.--Amadscientist21:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.
Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing!
Thanks for uploading Image:LadiesCravePoster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
I noticed on his pages history, when you tried to correct some information, he ignored your edit summary and just refered to you as a troll who was vandalising.[20]
He has made these false accusations of trolling and vandalism towards me and I'm sure many others. Do you know if falsely accusing someone of vandalism is considered abuse?
Hoponpop6902:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood Golden Age
Oh man I love!!!! your work from this era. RKO pictures etc etc is stunning work!!! I like yourself am a huge fan of the Hollywood classic era and I love b westerns of the 1930s and 1940s. I have been doing some work in this area filling in a few articles my most recent is Twenty Million Sweethearts but I am drawing up an entire List of American films to document the entirety of US film history. I am currently as far as the early 1930s American films of 1930 - American films of 1934. I would be immensely grateful if you could help these pages some time and add many missing films to them which you know of. I look forward to hearing from you in NY. Adios amigo ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?21:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will get to the peer review soon. Been having problems with my internet connection. In other news, looks like consensus has prevailed on testy subjects like the punk infobox and whether or not hardcore is a form of punk rock. For at least the next year or so, according to sources. WesleyDodds03:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:PulpFictionMedieval.jpg
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:PulpFictionMedieval.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Thanks for uploading Image:BlackMaria.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, then 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, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
I see you reverted my edit on the origins of term punk rock. I gave a definitive quote and date from the “The Yale Book of Quotations” (2006) the newest and best quote book available (better than Bartlett’s, since it has corrected many errors in Bartlett’s). So you reverted (without any explanation why) from my improved and more specific version with this prior version, which had this sentence:
“The term punk rock was apparently coined by rock critic Dave Marsh in a 1970 issue of Creem, where he used it to describe the sound and attitude of ? and the Mysterians.”
If this is true, give the actual quote, date, and its context. The link/reference for this was not specific in linking to this interview—I could not find it, so you will have to update it to a more specific link. Odd that you kept in this version since it is using the word “apparently.” Does the word “apparently” sound definitive to you? When I see that word, and I know the information could be true, but is just as likely to be spurious. If I am wrong, I’ll stand corrected, but if you can’t find a better source than the one I used (an actual book, not a website) than I am going to revert back in my version. Thank you. WordsExpert20:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Sanders quote is the earliest know usage of term, although the Yale book says he was using the term in a “somewhat different usage” (the exact wording in the book) than how Marsh used the term the next year. I gather from this that Marsh’s term is more exacting to what punk rock was, or what it became, so I think his quote perhaps merits mention. We seem to differ on the exact quote and to who or what he was referencing, but the Yale Book of Quotations has this exact quote (from page 492):
“Needless to say, it was impossible, even after two nights running of Tina Turner, to miss such a landmark exposition of punk-rock.” Creem magazine May 1971
I’m sure you know this subject way, way better than I do, and that you have done much work on this article, so you can decide whether to use the quote or not. Thank you. WordsExpert21:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gone With the Wind
Could your offer your opinion in a dispute? It's about the Tara set for the movie Gone with the Wind, built at the old Selznick International Studios, which later changed hands to RKO, Desilu, and then Paramount. I provided some excellent citations that the set was sold, dismantled, and carted to Georgia in 1959, where it was to intended to be part of a theme park. An anonymous editor keeps changing that and insisting that the set was built at M-G-M, and that it was demolished in the early 1980s. I'd appreciate if you'd review the evidence I supply, versus the evidence the anonymous editor supplies (none), and leave a note on the discussion page. — Walloon00:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. As to Selznick's possession of the entire RKO-Pathé lot beginning February 1937, it seems to have ended no later than 1940. Globe Productions, Inc. (never heard of it) "will move its quarters from the Samuel Goldwyn Studios to the RKO-Pathé lot in Culver City," where it "has signed a lease for a major portion of the Culver City studio, which will include ten sound stages, and sixteen acres of exterior sets." ("Screen News Here and in Hollywood," New York Times, August 28, 1940, p. 15). Another article from 1949 seems to mark Selznick's departure from the studio: he is selling off his old studio equipment, storing the newer equipment, and planning to reopen in 1950, which he never did (Thomas F. Brady, "Republic to Make Film on Baseball," New York Times, April 8, 1949, p. 31). A NY Times article from 1949 definitely says Selznick's lease of RKO-Pathé had ended (Thomas F. Brady, "Hollywood Buys More Stories," May 1, 1949, p. X5). No doubt the David O. Selznick papers at the University of Texas would have the details of his rental history. — Walloon00:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
United States
Hello DCGeist, your recent revert to the article United States affected an issue or section of text currently under discussion in the talk page. Please discuss any disagreements in the talk page instead of arbitrarily deciding on what action to take. Ideally a consensus should be reached, otherwise your edits may be misconstrued as vandalism. Thank you. Humanproject05:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please make clarifications in regard accusations toward myself
Mr Geist, within talkpage of myself you make libellous accusation. This is besmirching of my reputation to the reader of profile. I make the preference to assumption of good faith in chance of you honestly mistaking. I have never read or edit Article page as you asserting. I invariably urge against vandalistic actions and harmful speculations. Please apologize and be removing false claim, in alternative cases I will prepare official complaint. Wen Hsing04:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JolsonJazz Singer.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JolsonJazz Singer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.
The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)
We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.
This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page
New irc channel
Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:
I am aware you have done much work on Pulp Fiction. This article kicks the ass off many articles which are already GA. I would propose it for a GA asap. It is way beyond a B class article - and you;ve added a good cast section and cleaned up the areas that failed it last time. to boot. I'd definately support it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)
The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Hi. I was disappointed that you reverted my edit. Contrary to your edit summary, my removal of the images was not "summary" but based on a detailed rationale which I explained in the article's talk page and have further enlarged on since. As an experienced Wikipedia editor you will no doubt be aware that it is the retention of material in article which needs to be justified; my removal was carefully explained, but I have not so far observed any real justification for keeping the images, other than that they have been there for a long time. As you may also be aware, the rules governing fair use of images here have been tightened up in the last few months; uses which were considered fine a year or two ago are routinely being slimmed down. You might usefully, bearing all this in mind, bring your rationale for keeping the images to the article's talk page. Thanks for your consideration, --John17:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some reorganzing since it's this week's project collaboration for the Alt-Rock WikiProject. Because we've discussed this before, I would be grateful if you could offer some bullet-listed thoughts and suggestions on my talk page. Thanks. WesleyDodds02:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedack. The solution to both issues is clearly additional sources, but those might be hard to find. I'm still comparing potential layouts (the current world-based arrangement vs. the pure chronological layout you suggested a while back). The issue with the need for sources on alt-rock from outside English speaking sources is a sound argument for the latter layout, since only the most notable aspects of alt-rock would be addressed, but I do worry that the tradeoff would be a systematic bias favoring bands from English-speaking nations. Then again, it seems strange in general that (judging from my research) while punk and post-punk bands emerged all around the world, alternative/indie bands seems to have been predominantly restricted to the US and UK before the 1990s. Oh well, I'll keep fiddling with it. Once again, any sources you have to provide would be much appreciated. Thanks. WesleyDodds07:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Punk rock
I take it that you will be restoring the minor copyedits of mine which you recently removed as collateral damage in your revert to restore images currently being used in breach of their fair use rationales? I hope so, and I hope you will also be updating the rationales of the images whose use you restored. I look forward to seeing those rationales; if it is not possible to provide them within our current policies on nonfree image use, I'm afraid they will have to come down. Sorry for the waspish tone, but that's quite a few reverts you've done of my work recently and I confess I am getting irritated. I don't mean to patronise you, but have you read Help:Reverting recently? "Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof." Please bear this in mind in future. --John05:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. You seem to edit with a lot of emotion; I suggest tempering it with a pinch of reason. My message above to you was well-intentioned and grounded in policy; your message to me was mainly based on your misunderstandings of my edits. It may be better if we do not interact if that is the best you can do in terms of collegiate communications. --John06:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find your last three messages helpful and I am requesting that you do not leave any further messages on my talk page, at least until or unless you are able to do so in an appropriate way. Any business we need to transact in the meantime can be done in article talk or wikipedia talk. Any future messages you do leave may be removed at my discretion. I hope you understand this is because I am here to improve the encyclopedia and not to bicker unproductively. Best, --John14:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DCGeist... I would like to ask if you could try to maintain a bit more decorum when dealing with your fellow editors on talk pages. Some of your comments to the anonymous editor on the Gone with the wind talk page are a were a bit inappropriate. Thanks for your many contributions, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I can appreciate the "tuff love" aspect of what you are doing, you run a very serious risk of looking like a dick. At some point incivility becomes disruptive to the smooth operations of wikipedia, and as you are aware, other then diplomacy there is only one tool available to admins to end a disruption. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with J.S. that we all need to keep our cool. I'd invoke the old standby: "do not feed the trolls". This is a silly dispute that the anon seems to enjoy. There's no need to keep engaging him. If he's serious about improving the project he'll find a source that supports his position. Until them let's just ignore him. ·:· Will Beback·:·21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee that the anon will continue to make unsupported claims. However he probably won't come up with new ones that haven't already been addressed. The verifiable evidence and the consensus contradict him, and further debate about a position that is already clear won't make it clearer. There's nothing to be gained by continuing to argue about his imaginary source. ·:· Will Beback·:·21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked by another editor to review your approach to editing... I think you may want to consider trying to be more collegial. There is no question that you've made many valuable contributions to the project, but that doesn't give you license to treat others dismissively, even if you're convinced they are trolling, as in the Gone with the Wind case, or if you strongly disagree with them about policy matters. Wikipedia functions best when we all work together positively. No one is perfect in this regard, certainly not me, so I hope you can take this advice in the spirit offered. ++Lar: t/c00:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit – can you explain how the language used in the captions is encyclopedic? Phrases like "didn't get much time in harness", calling a movie a "triple threat", and calling a movie "sophisticated" (a POV term) don't seem fit for Wikipedia; they seem more like writing you'd find in a film book. The point is not that they're "better written," the point is their tone.PBP01:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those who vetted the article in the Featured Article Review process tended to find the tone you are concerned with engaging and nondisruptive given its restriction to the captions and the content informative.—DCGeist17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
United States
Please stop edit warring on the article. As an third party it appears that you are correct on this occasion although you seem to have history(^^) with edit warring. Discuss the topic on its talkpage. Rick-LevittTalkContribs10:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ClockersLeads.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ClockersLeads.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:ClockersLeads.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot13:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making amends.
I apologize for my aggressive behavior earlier. I still don't entirely agree with the current content but I no longer wish to attack you or anyone else who may see differently than I.
In regards to the page Pulp Fiction (film), unless you live in England "The tube" a colloquialism and wouldn't be known the the majority of readers. While it does reflect the tone of the content, if all descriptions reflected the tone of the content the page would be called "Mutha f**kin' Pulp Fiction". I think legibility should come first. The silver screen is more widely understood, but if need be, that should be changed too. Chris Lloyd11:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not certain if you'd be interested, but...
...Preity Zinta is up for an FAC at the moment, and while it definitely is head and shoulders above most other Indian cinema bios here, it still has some serious issues, mainly copyediting, not content. I don't know if you feel like doing a bit of pinch-hitting here, but you'd definitely get some crazy props from a lot of editors and have another star to your name. I'd do this myself, except that I'm in the early stages of moving, and don't want to get in over my head right now. (Doing my coordinator commitments is enough for the meantime.) Anyway, if you're not game, I completely understand; just thought I'd give you a try. Hope all's been doing well recently, and look forward to whatever other ultra-sharp articles you've got in the pipeline! Girolamo Savonarola05:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
I don't know, all I know is that you reverted someone back to a 'consensus version' without checking intervening edits; that usually implies there's a mild edit war going on. Looking at the history, I don't see that, but I do note that you reverted back at least 15 edits, since that was how long ago the interwikis were added - next time, please check all of the ones in the middle. --Golbez (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You reverted [21] an edit of mine on the United States page and I'd like to know why. I made a note on the Talk:United_States page under "Link to Borders" for you to see my rationale. Perhaps you could include links to Canada and Mexico if you agree without argument. MarsInSVG03:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My edits were neutral, I tried to keep them objective and sourced them to a well known, influential anthoropolgist. You reverted my carefully worded edits. You are in violiation of your accursed "NPOV" clauses as much as I am in violation of your fuckwit WP:Civ clauses. Goodbye. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate you because I can never make you understand common sense. Feel free to report me and block me. I'll close down my account too. But please learn something you ignorant cunt. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot01:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Riot Grrrl vandal
Hey there, I noticed you undid a revision by User:Scarlet257. This user has been systematically vandalizing references to Bikini Kill and band members. I placed a vandalism warning on the user's page. The user's M.O. seems to include removing the reference, then making another legit-seeming reference, such as the mention of "ironic" independence day, or a punctuation edit.--Larrybob00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
United States
Nice one. Ever since we disagreed over stylistics and interpretation of policy on the Punk rock article I seem to see you making good edits all over the place. I wanted to formally state how impressed I am with the calibre of your work here. I don't think I will ever quite agree with you on certain issues, but I know that intelligent people who are passionate about improving the encyclopedia (recognise yourself there?) are our most precious resource. I wanted to say that I regret falling out with you and now regard that disagreement as having thoroughly expired. Very best wishes and keep up the good work. --John (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a claim from Alain Silver and James Ursini's The Noir Style. Then why not you mention it in the article. This is personal opinion. Not any established claim. Hytioplion (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked you a question. I don't know whether you are any descendant of John Alton or no. Whatever it may be, you are violating wikipolicy. You are not answering to my question, you son of a bitch. Hytioplion (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
recent change to McCarthy article
you said you moved the footnote because of "MOS" which i can only assume means wikipedia's manual of style, i see nothing in there that says footnotes should be moved from the introduction. please quote that for me (on my talk page is fine), thank you in advance. SJMNY (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. my condolences for having to deal with the guy above me on this talk page, that kind of of language is completely uncalled for SJMNY (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: wicker/political opponents, i'll accept your edit with that explanation, i may attempt to modify that sentence myself but i'll do so with a sourced statement if i do. thanks. SJMNY (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dan. Just wanted to say thanks to you quickly for adding that citation on the Pumpkin's influence on Deftones. When I found my reference, I was glad to see a direct quote, but also felt it didn't entirely establish the connection. I knew they'd been mentioned in the same breath before, but couldn't think of any reviews I'd read that drove that home, so thanks for filling in the blank! :) - Phorque (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userpage protected
Just FYI, it looks like a sockpuppet or two have attacked your userpage; I've semi-protected it for the time being, which will prevent anonymous and new users from editing the page. Will expire in one week, currently. If you'd like this removed or extended, feel free to let me know. Cheers! – Luna Santin (talk)09:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Punk rock, again
I wish you wouldn't. We all have our own ideas of 'infelicity' and I applauded Spylab's edits. Please reconsider. (NB I am not wearing my admin hat here, just making a friendly request.) --John (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I've made a suggestion at the AN/I discussion. There has to be a way to move this forward without (figuratively) spilling any blood. --John (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, I've now archived the AN/I thread; I'm not convinced this matter ever did require administrative action. One suggestion; from now on, only revert obvious vandalism on the punk rock article. If it is merely a change you don't like, instead of reverting it try to seek a stylistic compromise and/or discuss in talk. Per Help:reverting this is what we are supposed to be doing anyway. --John (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting conversation we're having at Talk:Punk rock. I'll be away for the next week; we can come back to it, or you can think about how we can best take this forward in the meantime, I'll try to check in when I can. Have a good one, --John (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
United States page revert
you recently reverted someone's edit that said the state of Texas mandates the publication of certain documents in spanish. that claim is verifiable, see the Texas Agriculture Code § 125.010, Election Code § 272.005, and Government Code § 2105.054 for just a few examples of state mandated printings in spanish.
SJMNY (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy holidays DCG and some noir talk
Hey I've been following the discussion on the film noir artilce talk page, you put forth good arguments. Hello and I'm Luigibob. I've been working on many noir and cinematographer articles. Question: should a film noir task force be started in order to better coordinate and such? One reason is to help build consensus faster when problems arise and include input from pople who know, edit, and understand noir films. For example, I believe the "Film Noir of the Week" external link be allowed and not treated as a SPAM link. The web site is very good. Just a thought. I'll reach out to others as well, like RedSpruce. Finally, I trust you are having a super holiday season. Best-- ♦ Luigibob ♦"Talk to Luigi!"19:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joy Division
Wesely has brought J Div to FAC. Any interest in jumping in and helping bring this over the line? If ever a band deserved our full attention on wiki, this is the one. Your enegry and ability are needed. Ceoil (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. I would make a this is the way step in side joke, but it'd be so so obvoius. Would be nice to work with you again. Ceoil (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MutualTowerLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MutualTowerLogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
United States length
Give me a break Geist, if I had reverted your reversion soon after rather than several hours later, you would have no doubt used your 3 reverts instantly as your record of unrelentless reverting on said article attests:
Random edits aimed at "restricting further growth of the article" does nothing to address the problem of the article's current excessive length. The problem is with the current size of the article, not about restricting further growth. When there is no discussion about the length problem since December 18, it is clear indication that users are not "well informed". Certainly, "well informed" would imply that there is some kind of lengthy and vibrant discussion going on at the moment about how to reduce the article, not some half page discussion from almost a month ago where half of the users said that this article has no choice but to be this length. There is no mention on talk about some kind of 'template reduction' being in progress, which I doubt will significantly reduce the article, - but editors are still "well informed", right? (also, rather than content summarization and reduction, editors have attempted to cheat the size by replacing the Infobox with a template. It is currently up for deletion and the text of it will be reinserted, adding further size to this already bloated article). Furthermore, there has been problems with this article's size for an amazing amount of time, with no progress resulting despite repeated calls for it in the past. Having the template pasted on the article might perhaps encourage editors who have been unable or unwilling to reduce this article's size.--Miyokan (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, the article US is huge indeed, I think most readers acknowledged it and improvement is required. However, unlike your article Russia, no nominator currently would like to nominate USA over FAC so that size reduction is not that imminent. You spent most of your time to improve Russia and other Russian related articles, why don't you spend some time on improving the article of US? I hope you will fairly treat all articles in the same way regardless the content. Coloane (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have reverted back the template again just after you crossed the 24 hour mark for the 3RR. Doesn't it tell you something when nobody but yourself has reverted me? No other editors have removed the tag, even when it was there for all that time when you could not revert it yet again. You keep saying that I should offer ways to reduce the article if I insert the template - I am not obliged to do this and I will leave that to the editors who have more expertise on this topic. P.S. Do you have any suggestions about how to push Russia through FAC?--Miyokan (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uncivilisable
well, you can see the whole thing over the talk page of the US, my talk page, your talk page. I just made a very fair comment here and say the tag is not necessary at the moment putting over the US article. And now Miyokan voted "strongly oppose" for the article of Macau over the FAC page because he figures out I am from there and currently Macau is on the FAC page. Is that laughable? his way of thinking is pretty rambling and illogical. I hope you can take a look and defense my view over the FAC page, plus you can make some positive comment of Macau! Thanks! Coloane (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your defense. I wish you could post your comment from the talk page of US on the FAC page so that other voters can read your comment. Thanks a lot! Coloane (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macau FAC
Thank for your comment/suggestions on Macau FAC. I think that Josuachan already improved and added sth. according to your comment you made. That is why I would like you to vote because you left your comment over there. Again, I appreciate your opinion over there. Coloane (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DCGeist, just ignore Miyokan's comment. He won't repsect you and your opinion. He just wanna aruge with you and project his anger. You gave him an inch and he will take a mile. I gave him opinions and urged him to improve the article Russia in a very good faith. AT that time I didn't nominate Macau so there was no conflict of interests. For what I received right now is humiliation, personal attacks and retaliation from him. That's it! Coloane (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
United States
In economics there is a distinction between the official and unofficial economy i.e. non-barter economy. Also 'over 19%' includes 20% to 100%, no one in the world knows the correct share of the US in the world official economy i.e. non-barter to such a high level of accuracy, cheers Tom (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help?
I saw your excellent work with the United States article and wanted to ask if you would be interested in helping to improve the Russia article. Note that I am not concerned with attaining FA status as I don't think that will be possible. Regards, --Miyokan (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.
I hereby award this barnstar for your stunning revision of Pulp Fiction, an article which is absolutely up to the film's standards! This diamond in the rough was a pleasant surprise as it has surpassed all other revisions in the past! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey DC Geist, im the one who edited the page of the USA gross domestic product, im going to explain you what I did, I first edited it changing the trillion by billion. I just didnt see the comma and dot problem, I was corrected by a user, and then I editted it again and i DID change the comma, so the second time the information was ok. I was just trying to be helpfull and edited it that way so it follows the same scheme of all the other countries, and as I did it wrong the first time, i apologized and then did it correct. And anfter the second time, you give me a vandalism warning tag!!! what did I do wrong?? I corrected myself the second time. I already saw that another user deleted you tag because the problem was already delt with, but I would still want to explain why I did that for, and I assure you I was never vandalizing the article. Sincerely--Philip200291 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How have you been doing? I hope everything's been well, and congrats on your recent hard work on punk rock and the USA article. I certainly don't have the guts to tackle such large subjects myself, so my hat's off to you, sir! Since I know that you've been active with the Pulp Fiction article, I just wanted to give you a heads-up regarding a merge for this article; I don't particularly see the point for a character list when they all only appear in one film; the plot summary covers most of their content, while the rest is either OR, trivia, or production info that can be merged into the film article. Anyway, have a look. Thanks and keep up the good work! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS, any film-related FAC's in the pipeline soon? Why not this one? :)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:VertigoHangSS.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:VertigoHangSS.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
It is much better for you to immediately report the edit of user:Miyokan to WP:AN3 in case 3RR were broken or WP:ANI for gaming the system (i.e. WP:GAME) in case of disruptive edits. It doesn't matter if he technically makes sure himself not reverting more than 3 times within 24 hours. Coloane (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no--overcrowding article with images diminishes their effect; we already have a nice big skyline picture--given the article's size, there's no need for an additional night one
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have reviewed McCarthyism and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dane Rudhyar.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dane Rudhyar.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BladeRunnerSS.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BrickScreenshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I did not understand your first message. I have already started the FAR. Do you think I should withdraw the article from FAR and submit it for FAC?Sumanch (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry I did not got back with you since our last communication. I would like to work with you to bring this article up to FA standard.
While reading the previous FAR/C comments, the biggest complaint this article received was its size. I read the article carefully and I believe we will be able to get the size down considerably. The reason this article is this large is because all the editors are trying to put information in this article. Ofcourse we are the most dynamic nation when it comes to current affairs and the amount of influence we have. However editors must remember that this is a top-level article and though at time it may seem that something is quite important but it wont be appropriate to include in the top-level page.
And for this reason, though this is a fine article, the size is excessive and the quality of the sub pages are quite pale in comparism. So, for a start, I am just copying sections into Word and then compressing them into precis. I will send them to you after I am done with couple of the sections. While writing the precis, I making sure that I am not losing the essence of the content. I hope we will be able to make it a better article. Thanks. Sumanch (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Regarding Category:Films made before the MPAA Production Code - I assume this is meant for American films of the Pre-Code era, and not every film made before 1930/34. To that end, I've tightened the phrasing in the description, but questions still linger. We know the era ended in 1934, but a few searches on Google Books reveal the sources are divided as to its beginning - many say 1930 and 1929, a few 1928. This matters, because I see The Jazz Singer there; that's 1927, though I suppose it's more defensible than putting a 1927 silent in the category. And what about that word "created" - a film like Satan Is a Woman was partly created before the Code went into effect, but released only after. Finally: wouldn't "Pre-Code films" be a better, less cumbersome name for the category (provided a similar explanation was placed on its page)? I suppose the Pre-Code article needs some work too. Biruitorul (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know it's considered to be bad faith editing when you immediately revert someone else's changes without discussion. The picture that you prefer is certainly nicer on a large scale, but is very unclear at the typical viewing size within the article. If you want to debate the aesthetics of the two pictures (and allow for the feedback of others) that would be fine, but you should have at least started a discussion topic on it before changing it back. --Jleon (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your edit was really good (as usual), but could you put back Cage? The source I found said they both took the class and I think it's really important that this is known. Badagnani (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey DC - I may be interviewing Richard Hell of Television (band). I know the punk articles are important to you, and this will give us some good quotes, audio and images. Let me know if there is anything in particular you want me to ask. Dave --David Shankbone14:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lower Manhattan
Thanks for openly discussing the image dispute with me. If you do change it, I won't revert, but just a friendly reminder that that would be your 3rd revert in 24 hours on that page. I would probably agree that there isn't consensus either way, I just personally think that there must be a "more tasteful" (I guess that is POV) pic to include. At the least, it should be lower-res... clicking on it and being able to identify at least 4 random individuals doesn't seem appropriate. Gwynand (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You like films, don't you?
Hey, long time no talk. I was browsing randomly yesterday and discovered the ungodly mess that is Stanley Kubrick. Definitely in need of sources, but needs to be severely pruned first. Wondered if you might be interested in helping out, particularly in rearranging information into appropriate sections (see the FACs on the talk page for discussion on that). WesleyDodds (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated United States, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smile
WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
tone clusters
I had no idea you were into music. I guess I saw "heavy metal" towards the top of your list overleaf and switched off suddenly. May I be fussy? "A tone cluster is a musical chord comprising consecutive tones in a scale." Lots of chords include consecutive scale degrees without being clusters—even a 7th chord. I wonder whether the word "predominant(ly)" might solve the problem. I don't understand "because of the arrangement of the playing area".
My experience is that tone clusters sound harsher on the piano than non-keyboard media, affecting the judgement of students when they produce non-keyboard music in dissonant styles using the piano as a compositional tool. TONY(talk)11:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dan—I'm unsure whether here or at Tone cluster talk—first, your fixes of those issues are excellent. But heck, it's a complicated topic, so I've got a few points you might wish to comment on:
"... three or more consecutive pitches each separated by only a semitone."—This means, for example, C–C sharp–D–D sharp, yes? Maybe such an example is necessary, since the semitonal relationship is only between certain pairs, not between all. I wonder whether "whether in the same octave or different octaves" needs to be added.
The Nicholls quote may confuse the punters. I wonder whether his first point about "two tone-clusters" might be exemplified with the note names, either in square brackets within the quote, or in the para after it. His use of "diatonic" to mean white notes, "pentatonic" to mean black notes, and chromatic to mean both sets, is problematic, I think. Recently, there's been a storm at Diatonic and chromatic about such definitions.
"these stacks involve intervals between notes greater than the half-tone gaps of the chromatic kind"—This statement is true because there not enough semitones available for a chord to be built entirely on semitone-related tones, am I right? (That is, the so-called diatonic scale has only two semitones, at a distance, and the black-note scale none. If that's the inference, I think it needs to be spelt out.) I wonder whether an image of a keyboard might help—I dug a rather nice one out of the Commons a couple of years ago for Diatonic scale, although I contributed hardly anything to the text after the opening definition.
Dan, your changes are good. My brain fries at the complexity of the issues—the semantics, the concepts. Noetica might be a good person to ask for a review; he's very good at theory. I can go through the rest some time if you want a second opinion on the wording. TONY(talk)12:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:CharlesWilliams(US).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CharlesWilliams(US).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on content, not on the contributor
Hi again DCGeist. Just a friendly reminder of our policies on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. To save you the trouble of reading these policies (and they are policies, not guidelines), I'll sum them up in a short sentence as follows. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Take care, --John (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the personal attacks on the Punk rock talk page
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't patronize me!
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HAHA of all people to be complaining about personal attacks. Check out Hoponpop's contributions and you will see the humor in this. Although he may have learned his lesson, he is just off of is 47th block. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He might've learned his lesson, except for when he just called DCGeist a jerk (and then removed it to make it look like he didn't say it). He also acts like someone new to Wikipedia, but he's been editing since 2006 so he's obviously not maturing at all. Timmeh!00:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I locked it because of edit warring. I do not endorse the current versions mind you, that's just the one that was there when I protected it. Kwsn(Ni!)00:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Hell: No way in hell we'll be gettin' some free photos from the early days
Hey Dan - I don't think we're going to get some free photos from Richard. First, he was really cool - the title was just an obvious joke I couldn't resist. Second, He doesn't really have any (I guess he wasn't all that into taking photos during his punk days) and then he put me in touch with a professional photographer, who was warm to the idea until she learned she would have to release her copyright. Then no word back from her. I asked her if she just had one or two, and we'd have her name in the caption, a link to her site on the image description page, etc. Or even release a low-res version and keep the high-res, ala Robin Wong...but to no avail. Anyway, I have three photos I uploaded from my time with Richard here; the one in the lead right is his favorite (and his wife's favorite). Third, we simply can't rely on professionals whose livelihoods are wrapped up in every photo they shoot; we need to get more home-grown photographers who do what I do. --David Shankbone00:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your note
Hi Dan, pages are usually protected on whichever version the admin finds when he arrives at the page, which is often a bone of contention; see m:The Wrong Version. If the admin was uninvolved, there's really nothing that can be done. If he was involved and had previously shown that he preferred the version he protected, you can ask an uninvolved admin to review. SlimVirgintalk|edits01:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That it's a very sensitive policy didn't help. Lots of people depend on the precise wording of that policy to remove non-free content, which is an issue very dear to the heart of lots of senior Wikipedians and the Foundation, so anyone who tries to dilute the force of the words is likely to have a fight on their hands. :-) SlimVirgintalk|edits01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where it went off the rails
On April 10, two editors on their own initiative reverted to the previous wording of the clause. I reverted them per the history detailed above.
^- here. When you consider reverting a revert, that's typically a big flashing warning sign that You Are About To Do Something Contentious.
You can still choose to proceed, but then you'll be forewarned that you're entering the twilight zone. In future, before reverting a revert, consider if some alternate course of action might be better entirely.
As for the "to hell with the icebergs, full steam ahead" approach, In this case, you didn't prepare beforehand. You had no policy rationale (in fact, your revert was contrary to policy as far as I can tell :-/ ) and you had no IAR rationale, and you were unprepared to deal with the people who your revert-of-a-revert would put you in trouble with. So either you or they escalated the situation, and now we're stuck with a lot of mess over just a couple of words. :-P
So that's the three tips I can give to prevent a future situation again: Don't revert a revert, and if you really feel you must, be sure to come prepared with a solid rationale, and try to prevent escalation.
Note that this obviously does not reflect on you as an editor (becuase you're a cool wikipedian!), just on your actions in this situation. :-)
Well, looks like some folks asked me to step in as neutral 3rd party to try and get WP:NFCC unprotected. More work for me. ^^;;
Well, let's try the simple direct approach. If the page becomes unprotected, could you promise to not edit the page for a while (say 72 hours or so? And always ask someone else to do edits for you on talk?) I'll ask the same question of User:Black Kite right now. If you disagree, there's several other options that could work, this just happens to be the simplest. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
== The Max Lazer Band.Thank you for your courteous message.Yes,I am new and a novice at Wikipedia.I didn't mean to appear rude or high-handed.The article is ,of course, excellent.I was just gravely disappointed not to have seen Max Lazer listed.A few of his songs are featured on a new al05:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)bum called "the Godfathers of LA Punk". Max was really good-a mixture of glam and punk.But I realise my word alone doesn't count.Perhaps another user will add him. Thank you for your advise.Jeanne.
Thanks Dan for the link.I added them to the glam punk article.Max himself actually looked like a cross between Mick Ronson and Michael Des Barres.Thanks again.Jeanne.jeanne (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that you had reverted my edit of naming a reference in the United States article. I had named the ref because I was intending to use it in my subsequent edit, which in fact I had done before your revert. In future, it may be helpful to allow some time to pass before reverting a person's edit if it is not materially disruptive to the article. I guess we can all get a little quick on the undo button when we are safe guarding from vandalism. Are you doing vandal patrolling by any chance? Alan.ca (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DCGeist. I have not forgotten your request for input at Tone cluster; in fact I have been doing some research and reading, and thinking a lot about the issues. I expect that I will be able to give a reasonably long report at the talkpage towards the end of the week, when certain distractions are out of the way.
I want to inform and warn you that just because you do not agree with a template's design, that does not make it right for you to make your own template, of the same design, in your own image. Please do not replace the proper article, or alter the proper article without a good reason or importance. — NuclearVacuum19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
Dan,I want to report a case of vandalism on an article I edited a few weeks ago.It's the Lori Maddox article.Someone has vandalised it.jeanne (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Building process
Please do not mention that I am stating that I possess the article. I just wish for it to have a place in the article. Please do not spread rumors, it is a bad thing to do. I have looked at the template you sponsor, and I believe it is not suitable for the article of the "United States" in the case of quick information on it. The template looks better on "Demographics of the United States," witch talks about this specific information, where the template I am sponsoring is more suitable for the main article because it gives quick and ready to read information. I have taken the liberty to move both templates and I am going to leave it for discussion on the talk page. Lets try to work together. — NuclearVacuum19:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I added references to the article, somebody screwed them up. Then I reverted it again and your restored the screwed up version with this this edit. I am restoring it for the second time. Please don't revert again. Don't you realise you're introducing the broken version? Have a look at the references section. There should be two cites. Thanks, --Cambrasaconfab23:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Max Lazer Band
I just submitted an article on the brilliant Max Lazer Band but it has been deleted. Do you think it should stay,Dan? Their music was so good, a pity none of the editors agree with their notability.jeanne (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:EEHorton.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk)13:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
B movie articles
Hello. A number of B-movie articles were nominated for GA. You seem to be the primary author:
The first was already reviewed for GA, in case you're interested. It seems unlikely the nominator will handle them. The nominator has, to my knowledge, never edited these articles, and has not edited Wikipedia in three weeks. I've removed the nominations for the others unless you want them reinstated. Gimmetrow23:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. It would mean a lot to me if you could help make an argument on the talk of the city template of the United Kingdom. I know that you are interested in the way these templates work and are interested in keeping them (to some extent) standard. Please make an argument on Template talk:United Kingdom cities#Consensus if you are intended on keeping some standards here. Please make a statement here and thank you very much. — NuclearVacuum18:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
United States culture
The culture of African Americans is very different than the culture of West-Africa. Many black slaves were brought to the New World from many different areas - yes, mostly from West-central Africa, but also Brazil, Mexico, etc, long before many white Europeans settled here. There is no written documentation for the people enslaved stating where the slaves came from. Most African Americans have no idea of their ancestry, and some have no African DNA whatsoever - so it's misleading to say otherwise. Please see this link for a better understanding. If you need more, with all due respect, I suggest you do more research, before you revert me again. Thanks.KGBarnett (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Facts
<Like to like attitude> I don't know where you garner your "facts" - but if they're from movies - those ain't facts. If I judge by your contributions and your photo on your user page - I don't think you know the "facts". If you are really interested, please ask me, and I'll provide you with actual book references, and scholarly papers that provide some real "facts".</attitute> Also, living among black Americans and having African ancestry provides some perspective and insight too. ;) KGBarnett (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I referred above - your tone, ownership issue, and language could be considered "uncivil" from the link you posted to me - which was provoked by your actions and messages. I was being civil before, and still am. Telling me, "[t]he facts remain" - when they are only assumed and not backed up by proper sources - then insisting they stay - is far worse than being incivil. Please do not revert again, unless you have sources to back it up. Also - I would appreciate you do not project my state of mind and take your own words of advice and apply them to yourself. I'm concerned regarding the accuracy of information where I do have some knowledge. New or not, does not make me wrong or ill-informed - outside the community standards on Wikipedia, a place anyone can edit. (Ideally edited by those who actually have some expertise and/or solid knowledge in a particular area.) KGBarnett (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, Girolamo Savonarola (talk), hereby award DCGeist the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. For an uncommonly high level of attention, research, and quality given to the film articles which the project is lucky enough to see you edit.
Thanks for adding the music sample for "Television Addict" - was interested in how you did that as there are a number of 'classic' australian songs that would benefit from also having a music sample in the article. Dan arndt (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Good grief
You have no right to be talking to me in that tone. I have as much of a say on Wikipedia as anybody else. At lease hear what I am trying to say instead of going off the deep end. — NuclearVacuum19:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy vs. standardization
Since you seem to have participated in some debates regarding the Templates of largest cities of countries in the world, let me ask you for your help or opinion in this matter. It looks like NuclearVacuum has created a standardized template for the largest cities, and protects his design from any proposed changes made by other users (e.g. [22]).
While I really don't care about format (even though I like the one proposed by Joao better), I am concerned about accuracy. He tends to mix the concept of cities with metropolitan areas. For example, Template:Largest cities of Mexico and Template:Largest cities of Argentina are reporting population figures of metropolitan areas, but listing cities (for example, in the latter, the city of Buenos Aires has a population of almost 3 million, whereas Greater Buenos Aires has a population of 15 million). So, either the links and the column label need to be changed to "Metropolitan areas", or alternatively, we can insert a title for the table ("Largest metropolitan areas of..."), and label the second column as "Core City" or "City proper". I opted for the second choice in the case of the Mexican cities, and this label seems to have been "standardized" (oftentimes incorrectly) in other templates, as it was the case with the UK cites.
Now, I've tried to explain to him why the templates of Mexico and Argentina are misinforming the readers, and what needs to be changed (see Template talk:Largest cities of Mexico), only to be ignored and my changes have been constantly reverted (see [23]). I would appreciate it if you'd give your opinion at that Talk page, and help us sort this thing out.
"Proper names and formal numerical designations comply with common usage (Chanel No. 5, 4 Main Street, 1-Naphthylamine, Channel 6). This is the case even where it causes a numeral to open a sentence, although this is usually avoided by rewording." Now it's your turn to find a bit in the MOS that says this doesn't apply to years, because I would say a year is a "formal numerical designation" which "complies with common usage." --Golbez (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Things got way out of hand, and I admit, they were accelerated by me, and I really hope that we can calm things down and get back to working together. --Golbez (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, I'm touting copyeditors to look at this. I don't think it needs much effort and hopefully light work will bring its present state across the FAC line. If you have time to look at it; that would be great. Ceoilsláinte18:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ramones album cover.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Ramones album cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
Kindly note that I, an administrator, have determined that this image does not pass WP:NFCC with regard to the page punk rock as it does not add to readers' understanding of the article. Please do not re-add it. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:ZepInParis.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:ZepInParis.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poseur article started
Hi Dan, I know your name because I have edited the Heavy Metal article, which you have also done a lot of work on. I just wanted to let you know that I have started an article on the controversial and much-debated term "Poseur (music)". (I had to add the "music" tag because "Poseur" is blocked). As it touches several topics that you are interested in (punk and heavy metal), I thought you might be interested in contributing. I think that it is an interesting topic because the notion of "authenticity" is important part of the values and philosophy in the heavy metal and punk musical scenes; and yet, it is so difficult to define "authenticity" (thus the lengthy debates and arguments on this issue). Now that the article has been started, I think that we can expect a lot of vandalism and page-blanking, and the usual unsourced POV/OR stuff (like a "List of Poseur bands"). If you don't have time to work on the article, I would nevertheless appreciate any "big picture" suggestions on sections, issues, etc. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 2008 Home Run Derby took place yesterday. Justin Morneau defeated Josh Hamilton in the final round, 5 home runs to 3, although Hamilton broke a record with 28 home runs hit in the first round.
From the Editors
Baseball has a history unlike any other sport. It has been played in countless countries throughout the decades, and it will undoubtedly continue play for many more. On this eve, some the finest players the sport has to offer will take the field at the Yankee Stadium. Four popes spoke there, Pelé scored goals there, "The Greatest [football] Game Ever Played" was battled out there, John Philip Sousa lead a band there, George Costanza worked there; but what do all these events have in common? They fail to reach the level of greatness that the baseball that was played there did.
In 1923, a man named Babe Ruth decided to build a new house, and over the years, that house was a home to some of the greatest baseball ever played. If I were to list out all of these great moments, it would be longer than the bill for the New Yankee Stadium. So I'll sum it up by saying that we can remember these great moments by adding them to this place we've gathered at for future generations to read about, to learn about, to dream about; but more importantly we can watch tonight and we can remember how baseball is unlike anything else that we will encounter in our lives. — Blackngold29
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Stamaty EliaKazan.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamaty EliaKazan.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:RKOendlogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:RKOendlogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections
Roll call and Coordinator nominations
It's that time of year again – we're wiping everyone's name off of the active members list and doing a project roll call. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Filmsparticipants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. You can also add your name to any of our many task forces!
It's also time to start the WikiProject Films coordinator selection process! We are aiming to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
B Movies & other cinema articles
Dear DCGeist, I'm a french administrator on the fr.wikipedia, and I main work on cinema articles. I've wroten fr:cinéma for example, and others, as fr:M. Night Shyamalan or fr:Festival de Cannes. During my participation, I've also translated many articles from en.wikipedia, and there was your work : B Movies (in translation), Sound film and Kinetoscope. I think the technical aspect of the cinema is the encyclopedia main aspect.
In first time, thanks for all of your articles.
More, can you give me some quotation about B Movies, from books, newspaper or other ? Indeed, there is a "Wikiconcours" (see Wikipedia:Danny's contest), and this year, the work between different wikimedia project is valorised, as the Wikiquote, the Wiktionary, Wikibook, Wikisource, Commons, ... We've chosen 'Commons, Wikiquote, and Wiktionary'. For Commons and Wiktionary, there aren't any problems, but Wikiquote ... I've not find any quotation about B Movies ...
So, if you can help me, I'll thanks you very much ! Regards — Stef4821:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you answer me on the fr.wikipedia, fr:User talk:Stef48, please ...
Hello, thanks for your answer ! If you want more information, contact me at : sb_paramountyahoo.fr , so I will have your email address, and I can bring you my question by mail ... In waiting your answer, regards Stef48 (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:ConePerfecto.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Films coordinator elections - voting now open!
Roll call and Coordinator nominations
The September 2008 WikiProject Films coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of candidates. Additionally, we are keeping nominations open during the voting period, in case any additional editors wish to nominate themselves. Please vote here by September 28!
You might want to re-tag your images of Black Mask in The Maltese Falcon. The magazine is form 1929, which means it fell into the public domain in 2004 at the latest. In fact, most works from that era expired after 25 years max. In either case, Fair Use is not needed, and you can even move it to the commons if you want. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We apologize for not sending out our August newsletter, we have tried to cover some events of the month in this issue.
The playoffs have started! The Dodgers and Phillies have won their respective Division Series and will face off in the NL Championship Series. Both series in the American League have yet to be finished. Show your support for your favorite teams by keeping up with their season pages!
Orphaned non-free media (Image:MulhollandPhillies.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:MulhollandPhillies.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:PedroNearPerfecto.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:PedroNearPerfecto.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BigHaz - Schreit mich an07:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Novidmarana (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - This user is someone who uses multiple accounts. I'm putting together a sock puppet report. These are the user accounts that I am sure he's using.
I feel there should be clarification either with in the b-movie article or by creating a "genre film" article. The terms are currently being used interchangeably with no credit being given to the concept of "genre film" which I feel is defined by a film that fits into historically genre defined categories (eg Sci-fi, horror) while a B-movie can be any type of film made with a limited budget commercial intent.
As the b-movie article is your baby and I don't want to intrude could we maybe
1. create a ==genre film== subsection
2. put a Genre film section under associated terms (C,Z,Genre Film, Psychotronic)
3. Change intro to A B movie is a low-budget commercial motion picture (sometimes referred to as a Genre Film)
One of my Wiki-friends NSR77 is looking to work on Trout Mask Replica in the future. That might be up your alley. As for me, ever since closing up the FAR for Watchmen in October I've been trying to figure out what my next project will be. I'm currently trying to finish up In Utero at the moment, but beyond that my next major project is eluding me. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given you're based in Noo Yawk and seem to be quite familiar with the library system, do you have access to collections of magazine back issues? I'm particularly thinking of Rolling Stone, NME, and Spin. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily I do have access to pretty much all the print sources available on In Utero due to a cross section of news websites, fansites, Rock's Back Pages, and the Nirvana Companion collection. What I don't have are access to are year-end polls by NME or Rolling Stone, as well as reviews from Spin (compared to Rolling Stone and The New York Times, their back-article archive is a huge letdown). These types of resources would be useful not just for In Utero, but lots of music articles if you could find them. But I guess let's start with In Utero. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a chore, but could find any single reviews for "Heart-Shaped Box" that NME or Melody Maker might have done? The single came out in September 1993, if that helps narrow things down. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Dan
Work with me here. I haven't read every word, but I know something of the history of the NFCC8 argument. My position is that some of the "regulars" at IFD haven't handled this issue in the ideal way; but then, that's what "law" is for, to try to get to the least bad outcome when people aren't acting as they should. I'm thinking of protecting WP:NFCC until the edit-warring is over, but I'll ask over at WP:AN for help on the general issue of page protection on guidelines and policy pages; there's very little in the WT:RFPP and WT:PROTECT archives to assist me. I'm not the expert on these things, but my feeling is that I wish people were a little faster to protect pages and not so fast to turn people in to WP:3RR or WP:ANI; the goals ought to be intelligent conversation on talk pages and reasonable but not oppressive stability on guidelines and especially on policy pages. Blocking people just to get stability on a policy page strikes me as using a sledgehammer to swat a mosquito. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed to Dank55, but DCGeist you need to read this too...
DCGeist undid an edit by Howcheng and raised the issue at WT:NFC (see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Check_the_record). Following his starting that thread, three editors (one of whom was Howcheng) voiced an opinion that DCGeist's reversion was improper. Following those three editors chiming in, DCGeist engaged in a series of 3 edits within 24 hours [25][26][27] that all performed the same action; removing ", and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. " from the NFCC #8 policy. Since originally starting the thread questioning Howcheng's action, DCGeist has not been involved in discussion on the issue. These are the bare facts in play with regards to this particular case.
DCGeist has been blocked for edit warring three times in the past, most recently in June of this year. He is well aware of that policy. As far back as June of 2007 [28], DCGeist was informed that 3RR doesn't simply permit you to make 3 reverts within 24 hours, and that contentious edit warring can lead to blocks even if he is not technically in violation of WP:3RR. This policy voices this as well where it says "The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule." DCGeist is well aware of this. Despite this, he has chosen to engage in edit warring anyways.
If this were brought to the attention of WP:AN/3RR, he would most likely be blocked on sight for continuing this edit war. I would imagine that a considerably longer block would be applied, given that DCGeist has been blocked three times for the same offense in the past. I am not going to make a report to WP:AN/3RR if the edit war stops, in the interest of supporting your efforts Dan. But, if the reversions continue I will. That is not a threat. It is an assurance that I will actively work to stop an edit war in progress. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:DCGeist, I reviewed a 3RR report concerning this article. Could you please clarify on Talk:Pulp Fiction (film) the reasons as to your reversions over the past 24 hours? I'm just not familiar enough with the history of the article, and it appears as though you have worked on it for a long time, and are more familiar with the previous discussion regarding formatting. User:Str1977 also thought that your edit summaries on these reversions constituted personal attacks, and appeared offended by them. I agree that they were not the most conducive to collegial work on articles, and as such, I'd like to remind you of our WP:NPA policy. Thank you -- Samir10:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To strengthne the implicit warning above to an explicit one: You are lucky to have escaped a 3RR/civility block for this. Please discuss more, revert less, and be civil in your edit summaries William M. Connolley (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FILMS Questionnaire
As 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! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Proper style for punctuation with inline citations
Sorry. I tried making them all the same, and every page seems to have some of each. I will stop the trailing punctuation... but I will still look at fixing red links, etc.
I went back through all the pages that I have edited to check for incorrect punctuation. I found that you had already changed many of them back (thanks again) and I corrected the rest. I even found a few that you had fixed where you missed one or two... usually where the reference was near a comma.
Looking over the article, I believe this is an excellent candidate for A-class review. As of now, we only have two A-class articles at WP:FILMS, and I believe this one would qualify. Girolamo pointed out that this year is the 15th anniversary of the film and it would be great to get it to A or FA. In addition, it would be another bonus for the project since it is one of the project's core articles. Anyway, let me know if you're up for it, as this article deserves a higher assessment. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend A-class since we have several FACs going on right now and I believe they frown upon having multiple FACs for the same project open. It will be also allow the article to get a look-over from several editors which can point out any areas for improvement before moving on to FAC. I'd be happy to help as my first edit on Wikipedia was on this article, although it was unfortunately just adding trivia (I'm come a long way since then). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Pulp Fiction gun
I appreciate the fact that you provided a source for the make of the submachine gun in Pulp Fiction. But still, I have to say it seems so wrong. That weapon looks nothing like a Skorpion M61; it is unmistakably either a MAC-10 or its variants.
Orphaned non-free media (File:KissMeDeadlyPandora.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:KissMeDeadlyPandora.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Civility
I blocked the IP from Talk:United States a couple of weeks ago because of the comments he was making. I did not, however, notice yours:
"Sod off, you racist prick. You "do not have time to read the book", but somehow magically you "know the way some Afrocentric fairytales can pass under the radar as scholarship." You "do not have time to read the book", but somehow you can find the time to masturbate to "invention myths"--apparently, that's your favorite way to get off. So, kleine scheiss bobble, do tell us exactly what are the independent contributions - specifically and individually (you stupid, bigoted, pretentious suck) - each German tribe made to American culture. And please make sure every one of your claims meets our required Wikipedia:Verifiability standards, slimeball."
This is absolutely unacceptable; I don't care if he started it or not, but you do not communicate with other users this way. Period. Had I noticed at the time I might have blocked you as well. Don't do it again. --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Why did you revert the recent edit under the article? DreamWorks made a deal with Universal first in fall 2008 before making a deal with Disney. They didn't get with Disney first in fall 2008. That's where the confusion began when you reverted those edits. We need that source of information. King Shadeed11:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.114.97 (talk) [reply]
Hi. We seem to disagree on this edit. I think that the phrase "and other putatively natural talents" is subjective and hard (if not impossible) to verify with a reference. Do you disagree?
License tagging for File:Banksy Pulp Fiction Mural.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Banksy Pulp Fiction Mural.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with respect to Wisconsin jurisdictions. Like NEW YORK (after which Wisconsin modeled its government), Wisconsin has civil TOWNS, not civil townships. You can read all about it here, here, here, here, here , here , here , here and here. Irrespective of the size of Appleton at the time of McCarthy's birth, it was an incorporated CITY, not an unincorporated TOWN.
Aside from the factual inaccuracies represented in it, the sentence on McCarthy's birth is a tortured piece of English. Please get your facts straight and stop letting your sense of ownership (ego?) interfere with a perfectly good edit. --Sift&Winnow16:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think Richard Rovere was familiar with the Wisconsin political subdivisions when he wrote his biography about Senator McCarthy in 1959. That was inaccurate and therefore, I am in agreement with Sift&Winnow's edit. I did insert:[29] into the text itself. This should help.Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
United States
Gosh you have a big Talk page!
The reason I am writing is to let you know that there will be no moreUnited States edits from me!!
Thanks for the entertainment, pal. I will now try to find something else to do. Have you any positive suggestions? B. Fairbairn Talk 20:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask you to quit using words such as "inane" and "insane," as per WP:NPA. Anonymous IP's are not necessarily vandals and no amount of bad faith will force me to create an account just to be taken more seriously. Your addition of "what one scholar calls" is anything but neutral, it implies the quote as being less important. The quotation marks around it, along with the source itself, should suffice. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - you keep reverting the change about Sir Lord Baltimore - rather than looking at the talk page, where there was at first implicit consensus, and now discussion about what else to add. One reversion I could see as being a simple mistake, but you've ignored two attempts to put in something that has already cleared the discussion page. Please explain your actions _on the discussion page_. Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A disgusting comment has been placed on the Metrication in the United States 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.
2. The average American probably lacks the intellect necessary to be able to handle such a change.
Concerning this edit, I know some people frown on templating the regulars, but since you're action was so completely irregular these notices should be helpful for you:
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. DreamGuy (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly warning someone about 3RR when they had been very recently (less than 24 hours before, actually) involved in edit warring is not by any stretch of the imagination "inappropriate". You had no right to label me a "troll" for doing so or to remove my comments, which also included information about his WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL violations, from his talk page. Besides the warnings already placed on your talk page, your comment above about "puff yourself up with a little police action" means you should brush up on WP:AGF. This kind of behavior -- yours or his -- is not tolerated here. You'd best go cool off and get some much-needed perspective before further digging yourself into a hole. DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you actually hoping to achieve? I'm slightly alarmed by your claim I am "blindly reverting", and further alarmed by your belief there is no issue with overuse in the article. The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include images, but as you have made it clear that you have no interest in resolving the problem or leaving it to be resolved by others, I'm going to deal with it myself. J Milburn (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is this, you're just gonna sit reverting me because the violation has existed for a while? It's no wonder it's existed for a while when you're so eager to beat back anyone who wants to deal with it. Please read our non-free content criteria and stop your edit warring. If you disagree with any of my removals and you actually have an argument to support the use of the image, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image (File:MMMBardot.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:MMMBardot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:TargetsPoster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
, see Talk:Pulp Fiction (film) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 22:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg)){kind=link}
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:ZepInParis.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
yahoo.fr , so I will have your email address, and I can bring you my question by mail ... In waiting your answer, regards Stef48 (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
