User talk:Boomur/Archive 2

Flood additions
Hi, I've added the reviews from the four UK weekly music publications (NME, Melody Maker, Sounds and Record Mirror) to the critical reception section – feel free to edit these and move them around as you wish. The reason I left the Record Mirror review out of the album ratings box is not just because the box is not supposed to contain more than ten ratings, but also because of the four magazines it was always viewed as the least credible and most 'teen pop' orientated, which is undoubtedly true (but we're not talking Hello! or anything similarly vacuous, it certainly covered alternative music as well and I remember articles and reviews of the first two TMBG's albums in there back in the late 1980s).

One other thing I would mention: you have the European release date down as a week before the US release in early January. I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but I have a reference from the NME issue dated February 24 that states that Flood was due to be released the following week, which would suggest the UK release date was February 26, 1990, although seeing that most of the UK reviews are from March 10 onwards I wonder whether the release was delayed a week to March 5. Anyway, one thing we can certainly state is that Flood was not released in the UK in early January, but late February at the earliest, which would tie up with "Birdhouse"'s UK release as well. Did you have a reference to back up the January 8 European release date? Richard3120 (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks Richard! i have to apologize; i genuinely forgot that i hadn't added in the articles you found till yesterday. i planned on adding them today, but i'm glad you got to it first because i was sort of unsure of how to go about it and i really like your prose. i'm replying from my phone right now, but i'll review the release date information once i can get on a computer. thanks for the note and for your help in general! ~ Boomur 16:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd actually forgotten I'd sent you the quotes in the first place! The reason I'd added them now is that I'm off on Thursday to Colombia so my internet access will be intermittent for a few weeks, and I thought I'd better do as much editing as I can before I go. Richard3120 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, i looked a bit more into release dates. it's still pretty hard to tell what exactly the correct date is. as far as i can tell, there are about four possibilities: January 8, the date found on TMBW, which a friend tells me can be found in a paper review that he has (although he does not have it on hand at the moment—he claims the date is mentioned in the past tense but this is impossible to verify at this point, so i think it's moot); January 12, which is printed in a German press release (scan here) but doesn't seem to have any other weight; February 26, based on your reasoning of the NME review; and March 5, based on the fact that all 5 UK reviews were indeed published in March. aforementioned friend just informed me that another review anticipates a January 5 release date. it's safe to say the release got pushed back at least once. i agree that late February/early March is most likely, but since it's not possible to determine a more specific date at this point, perhaps the safest move would be to just say "1990"; maybe we could include a note with an explanation of the uncertainty? that is, if it's possible to condense this into something coherent. ~ Boomur 18:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * actually, i'd like to just have my friend (Aselfcallednowhere) comment directly on this discussion, so i think it's best if i start a new thread (perhaps with some information from this thread) on Talk:Flood (They Might Be Giants album). is that all right with you? ~ Boomur 18:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Looking at that German press release, "veröffentlicht" means "published", so I am wondering if the date of 12 January actually referes to the date of the press release rather than the album itself. It is pretty clear that this is only the first page of the press release and that there was at least one more, by the way it only goes up to 1986 and the release of the first album: I wonder if the other page(s) would actually tell you Flood's proposed release date, if we had copies of them. Scratch that, I've just found the second page, and it makes no mention of a date. :-( Richard3120 (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I had the same suspicion about the German press release, it just seems weird to me that they would include the date of publication and not the album release date (but i don't really know the precedent for German PR). the second page (which i extremely roughly translated here; first one here) doesn't have any more date-related information, except their German tour dates.
 * BUT, i've started a new thread at Talk:Flood (They Might Be Giants album), so let's direct our attention there. ~ Boomur 19:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Impossible colors
I reverted your reversion of my edit on impossible colors. While original research is usually not acceptable on WP, on some topics of a particularly subjective matters (such as the experience of color), it would be hard to argue that what a scientists sees with their eyes is any more reliable than what a large number of people can see. Also, if you Google "stygian blue darker than black" you will find other references; virtually none of them are scholarly or "reputable" sources, but that's more to do with the fact that it's really hard to scientifically describe subjective color perception in a precise scientific manner. (Heck, even regular old blue is hard to define as one scientific paper may say it's light between 430-460nm and others say 410-440). — Code Hydro  16:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * first off, sorry for taking so long to reply; my computer has been acting up so i haven't been able to get on wp very much. but more importantly, my apologies! i misunderstood your original phrasing and took it to mean something much different from what you had actually intended. but, i'm glad to have set up the stygian WP:BLUE joke. nice work. i might modify the wording slightly to clarify it a bit more, but i can see that the content itself is apparent enough that it doesn't need to be cited. ~ Boomur 18:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

 * B) ~ Boomur 17:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.229.90 (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I think there's a misunderstanding here. By putting your comments above those made before yours, you are making it appear that a) your comments were made first and b) other people were replying to your comments when they were not. I have only edited the layout and indentation levels and attributed your comments, which are not considered bad practice per WP:TPO. I apologize for any misunderstanding, but my intention is to make the talk page more cohesive and easier to understand, not to alter the content of your messages. Though I would advise you to try to be more civil in the future.
 * Please note that to sign comments you simply have to type ~ —adding spaces will break the markup and will not leave a signature. ~ Boomur 10:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What don't you understand? I was responding to two SEPARATE comments from two SEPARATE people! Regardless, you have no right to fiddle with someone elses comments. But then, what should I have expected? This is the wikipedia after all. No wonder you people are struggling to find editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.225.186 (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you were "fiddling" with comments by placing your comments outside of chronological order, and I did not edit the content of your comments. I only put them back into chronological order. The hierarchy of replies is based firstly upon the number of colons indenting each comment, not on the order of the comments. Please see Wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelines for more information. I am simply a Wikipedia editor, and I do not represent Wikipedia by myself. Please do not direct your hostility toward me. ~ Boomur 05:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, please do not edit my comments. Unlike layout fixes, "grammar" corrections are not considered to be good practice, as noted in the template message you left for me. I have explained on my userpage my tendency to often use lowercase letters. ~ Boomur 05:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

re: thanks!
No problems! I added some more info from the Rolling Stone article to the page, so feel free to tweak, move, or edit what you like. That page is really quite awesome... I remember a few years ago when it was nothing but a skeleton of an article. Have you thought about taking it to GA review? I'd highly suggest that.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   02:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you! I am hoping to do some work on surrounding articles, such as "Birdhouse in Your Soul" soon as well. And yes, I nominated the page for GA review back in October, but it hasn't been reviewed yet! ~ Boomur 03:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I totally missed the fact that it has been nominated! Your work on Flood has inspired me to work on Apollo 18 a bit (that's probably my favorite album by them... it's been awhile since I've listened to it).-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's swell! I wrote a lot of the Apollo 18 article as well, but I was a Young Wikipedian then (well, younger) and lost momentum after a while. It is looking great! Maybe that one can get up to GA as well. The Flood book also has a good bit of information about their first two albums (and those are jointly my own favorites), so I will probably go back to those two soon too. ~ Boomur 05:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated Apollo 18 for GA, and I co-nominated you since you did a lot of work to the article and I think it only makes sense for you to get credit (you've done a TON of work). Is that OK?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   05:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * of course, that's fine! thank you for including me in the nom. I'm eager to see how it turns out. :) ~ Boomur 05:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Gender edit
The edit in the gender section was inappropriate, so I returned it, as noted. Please address the point in the talk section that noted my edit addressed a blatant contradiction in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxx12345 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * i don't really see a difference between the two phrasings, so the main reason for my rv was to fix the grammar. ~ Boomur 01:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I commented on it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Grabaciones Accidentales
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Images on "Arturia" entry

 * hi Caalamus. i have removed the images temporarily. i am currently working on expanding and rewriting the Arturia page, and i have not yet reached the point where i think images would be best integrated into the article. i will add some of them back once i get to that point. if you have any objection to this, feel free to re-insert the images yourself. hope that clarifies my intention! ~ Boomur 17:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You rock Boomur :]


 * ...thanks for your explanation!


 * Hysterical people talk a lot of scary stuff about Wikipedia. I'm just dipping my toes in the water & I suppose their worries are rubbing off on me. I thought someone had just deleted my work.


 * ( noob status on my attempts at communicating with you as well :P ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caalamus (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * no problem! you might check out WP:TALK for more info on how to use talk pages, btw! ~ Boomur 20:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Nah,
 * you know... I can't be bothered. I'm thinking I'm going to give this up. After the false alarm with you... now, some asshole, who has a WHOLE MILE LONG parade of people complaining about him ...has decided to tell me that what you did renders my files orphaned & that they will be deleted after 7 days.
 * This site is much better than nothing & I am grateful for it. I like to use it as reference. But it is rapidly becoming apparent to me that the inner-workings are rather Byzantine... & I feel decidedly elitist. The way in which we communicate shouldn't require tutorial. That's overly academic & pretty insulting.
 * The images were hell to get posted to begin with. Why not leave them there & move them ONCE you've decided where they should go? Particularly if this is the potential outcome? They were providing more information about a product created by the manufacturer described in the article. I placed them along side the previously existing image. That all seems very simple to me.
 * There is something to be said about the fact that one has to learn such minutia... & in fact that things like this aren't clearer & regulated. I've heard a lot of feminist bullshit about how this site sexist & hostile towards women. Of course, that is their lens... they skew things in THAT direction. That is how they approach the world. I can now see the reality from which their fantasy is derived. There is no need any of this be so complicated or esoteric. People who have a persecution complex are perfect for this sort of nonsense. As for me... I just think it's masturbatory & the bastion of cowards who can't bully people in real life.
 * ...& as for vän "stefan", who is running around policing everyone... are my non creative commons images actually inferior to having zero images in the article at all? What a schumck!
 * Now Boomur, you were patient & kind with me... & I thank you. I went from being nervous, thinking I might be offended, to deciding I am... & moving through to the point of feeling this is all absurd. Please don't misinterpret my frustration as a personal attack. I am apparently not cut out for this "community".
 * But really, this is horse shit. I won't be donating to wikipedia... or spreading it's gospel any more. This is just the same exclusionist fuckery perpetrated by the academy. All my heroes have turned human.
 * Take care... delete this, or whatever... I was just trying not to piss on your kind gesture by ignoring you :] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caalamus (talk • contribs) 02:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks for getting in touch. i am sorry that that is how you feel about Wikipedia. i can't say that i agree with most of your view points, especially from a feminist point of view. i know that sometimes there can be barriers to entry on Wikipedia, especially depending on certain social factors, but once you get the hang of things it can really be rewarding. it is a good idea to read up on guidelines before doing any major contributions, so that would be my suggestion for you if you do decide to continue on Wikipedia. good luck, ~ Boomur 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Digital Witness
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flood (They Might Be Giants album)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Flood (They Might Be Giants album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flood (They Might Be Giants album)
The article Flood (They Might Be Giants album) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Flood (They Might Be Giants album) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

re: GA promition of Flood!
Awesome! Glad to see that. Yeah, let's hope for some good news for Apollo 18 as well. It's been sitting there for a bit now, but definitely not as long as Flood was!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   06:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Sequential Circuits Prophet 2000
Harrias talk 17:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Teenage Engineering
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Flood (They Might Be Giants album)
Hello! Your submission of Flood (They Might Be Giants album) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flood (They Might Be Giants album)
The article Flood (They Might Be Giants album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Flood (They Might Be Giants album) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! :-) Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A warm thanks to you! I am so grateful for all the help you gave along the way! ~ Boomur 00:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Flood (They Might Be Giants album)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus. Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
 * was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
 * took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
 * worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! , and  17:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)