User talk:Hifrommike65

May 2007
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Bodybuilding on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing "Bodybuilding" page yesterday (Sunday, May 20)
Adam Abeles posted his own photo on this page, according to Wiki records, on March 11. He is notorious on discussion boards on bodybuilding for creating a hostile online environment, and his picture was resented for that reason. Moreover, Mr. Abeles is not representative of competitive bodybuilding. He has never placed in a national or regional bodybuilding competition, as hundreds (indeed, thousands) of other competitors have. If someone belongs at the top of an international online encyclopedia article, he is not the person who does. After reading an outcry on a discussion forum on bodybuilding, requesting that his photo be deleted, I did so since I'm a registered and established Wiki editor. If I was out of line, so be it. I just wanted to explain why I deleted the photo.

Thanks,

Mike Emery hifrommike65@hotmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hifrommike65 (talk • contribs).

That's false. I uploaded that image and I posted it on the page. Please see and [] which I subsequently changed the caption of and moved to the top. Mr. Abeles may not be "representative" of competitive bodybuilding(whatever that means) however that's irrelevant. The "Bodybuilding" page is not a "competitive bodybuilding" page but a page concerning all of bodybuilding. I've stated this over and over, It's the only free viable image that can be used. What a "message board" thinks of the picture being there is wholly irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't function on what some obscure message board thinks. Please don't remove the image again. Thanks. Wikidudeman  (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography of Philip K. Dick
I reverted your most recent edit to this article, because in the process of updating some information, you eliminated other information which is needed. Please don't take out the lost manuscript info, and check again about Lies Inc -- I believe (I haven't looked it up) that the revision info in the article now is correct. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  11:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Scjessey (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Anna Wintour
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Anna Wintour/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Leitmotif
I have been trying to clean up the music part of this article - as you did some work on the literature side, would you be able to expand it a little and/or add references to that section? Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Keith Anderson
That's now how you add a "citation needed" tag. You have to put in the article itself, not just type out left bracket-"refrence needed"-right bracket. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Kevin Barker for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Barker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kevin Barker until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

book of the month club
I see you changed this article to note the death of BOMC. This is important news, to me. I can see by your link to the Literary Guild that this must be true. How about a newspaper article? I have searched for an hour and can't find one.GroveGuy (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tonight's the Night...Live, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages All Around My Hat and Parcel of Rogues. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for a 3rd opinion
Hi! Since you are (or have been) one of the main contributors/maintainers of the Abba article, I'd like to request your opinion on a dispute about the proper handling of sales figures in the article's lead.

The dispute is at Talk:ABBA and your input would be very much appreciated. --Kmhkmh (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raoul Walsh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Egan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you help me with a new article
Hi! You came recommended to me as the guy that could help me with the process of creating a page for " New Focus Network" I understand you're a busy person but any help is welcome thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkschamp (talk • contribs) 20:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The Traveller in Black
As you made edits to The Traveller in Black in 2006 and 2013 you may be interested in Talk:The Traveller in Black. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 21:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Having a problem with your edits
My attention was drawn to your recent edits to Yentl (film) when the very next edit to the article was to correct a mistake you added. Reviewing that series of edits causes me to wonder whether they reflect 'fidgeting' more than well-considered fixes.

For instance, this edit quite changes the meaning of sentence. That the movie
 * derived from a written story
 * written in Warsaw
 * and *potentially* *symbolizes* a "philosophical shift"

is lost due to your edits.

Here you deleted a statement about the character's motivation, in favor of saying what transportation they used.

Here you decide that re-phrasing as
 * Yentl decides to ... takes ...
 * Yentl decides to ... enters ...

is better grammar?

Wanting to get an idea whether the Yentl edits were just a bad string at a bad time, I checked your recent edits. Your current latest edit, the first edit I checked says, yes, you are not taking appropriate care in editing. Please go look up the words 'lead' and 'lede'. You will see that 'lede' is the correct word, especially here at WP. Consider also that that word has been there since 2012. Is it likely the topmost text on the page would be unfixed in 6 years?

In general, I try to look for reasons not to change anything, suspecting I'm probably not understanding what is going on. Only if I'm sure that a change is warranted do I changed something. I think you also must switch to using that approach going forward. It is *never* a good thing when other editors have to fix your fixes. Shenme (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This edit also makes me very concerned. By appearances, you are changing a quote. This is just wrong.
 * I attempted to check/verify that quote, but the referenced site is poisoned right now, serving up malware, so I can't verify the quote. Finally found a page archived at http://www.allmusic.com:80/artist/wanda-jackson-p4580/biography, which in that article has the quote:
 * "I was the first one to put some glamour in the country music -- fringe dresses, high heels, long earrings," Jackson said of these outfits.
 * Oh look, back in 2009 someone decided to correct 'glamour' to 'glamor' in a quote. Why?? Because that's what they decided was better. It was wrong to do then also.
 * So... your edit happens to correct an error from long ago, but accidentally. Two wrongs make a right? No, not unless you did the investigation to prove the quote was wrong. Shenme (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ace Books, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Isle of the Dead and Past Master ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ace_Books check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ace_Books?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jesus Christ Superstar (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Touch of Class.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Dead link
DO NOT DELETE REFERENCES as you did from the article Silent Running https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silent_Running&diff=980397851&oldid=980397505 You will be reported for vandalism if you do this again.

A dead link does not make a reference invalid. Your lack of access to a sources does not make a reference invalid. A reference does not need to include a website at all, so a dead website is no reason to delete the reference.

Please read WP:LINKROT and learn what you can do to try and fix dead links, but even if you do not know how to fix them do not delete dead links. -- 109.77.199.80 (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Understood, 109.77.199.80. That said, I have made thousands of contributions to Wikipedia, & your hostile tone & shouting caps are offensive & disrespectful. Hifrommike65 (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was afraid that the delete I saw might indicate you had done this before, and I was disappointed that someone else had not reverted it already. If you are an experienced Wikipedia editor that makes it worse, but I hope you have taken this as an opportunity to learn or refresh your knowledge of WP:LINKROT and WP:SOURCEACCESS. People add to Wikipedia in good faith, it is offensive and disrespectful to delete what other people have tried to add without good reason. I don't expect you (or anyone else frankly) to do the boring work of adding archive links or finding replacement sources, maybe tag a dead link and leave it to the automated bots to add archive copies, but don't delete delete references, they can often be fixed and even a dead reference is better than no reference at all. -- 109.76.211.174 (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Mode/Genre
On the note to Your recent edit to Ray Bradbury's page, You wrote that 'mode' has supplanted 'genre.' However, You give no support for this. I looked at Wikipedia and Wiki notes as well as some other sites and could find no support for this assertion. What is Your source? Kdammers (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC) (UTC)


 * My source is contemporary literary theory, which has moved beyond the previous conceptualization of the Gothic mode, for instance, as a set of characteristics (haunted houses, Freudian return of the repressed, ghosts walking out of portraits, etc.). Here is an example, from Dale Townshend in 2019: “Gothic Antiquity: History, Romance, and the Architectural Imagination, 1760-1840 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019) provides the first sustained scholarly account of the relationship between Gothic architecture and Gothic literature (fiction; poetry; drama) in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Although the relationship between literature and architecture is a topic that has long preoccupied scholars of the literary Gothic, there remains, to date, no monograph-length study of the intriguing and complex interactions between these two aesthetic forms. Equally, Gothic literature has received only the most cursory of treatments in art-historical accounts of the early Gothic Revival in architecture, interiors, and design. In addressing this gap in contemporary scholarship, 'Gothic Antiquity' seeks to situate Gothic writing in relation to the Gothic-architectural theories, aesthetics, and practices with which it was contemporary, providing closely historicized readings of a wide selection of canonical and lesser-known texts and writers. Correspondingly, it shows how these architectural debates responded to, and were to a certain extent shaped by, what we have since come to identify as the literary Gothic mode.” An advantage of shifting from “genres” to “modes” is that it frees you to make connections that theory of genre generally does not. I am not saying the term “genre” has lost any meaning, but considering an artistic type as a mode allows you to bring to bear intellectual, historical, stylistic, political, psychological, philosophical, materialist (or in Townshend's case, architectural) considerations on a writer's or a work's literary characteristics. In the case of Bradbury, a freewheeling writer who swept past the limits of category fiction and redefined what a “genre writer” could do and be, I think it helps us think about the value and meaning of his work. Perhaps some work could be done to make clearer on Wiki what contemporary critics are doing with standard classifications of literature. Hifrommike65 (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is another example. Kenneth Dauber, The Logic of Sentiment: Stowe, Hawthorne, Melville (Bloomsbury Academic, 2000): "The Logic of Sentiment is a study of sentimentality, a literary mode that aims to answer the question, "What hold us together?" Against the grain of cultural studies, which understands sentimentality as consolidating communities on the basis of material or historical foundations, Kenneth Dauber takes a philosophical approach. He argues that sentimentality is love conceptualized in denial of a skepticism--understood as the problem of people's otherness to each other--that material associations cannot dispel. Through close readings in the style of "ordinary language" criticism, Dauber analyzes mid-19th-century American novels, where sentimentality achieved its most complete articulation, with a focus on three novels published nearly simultaneously-Uncle Tom's Cabin, The House of the Seven Gables, and Pierre. Referencing a wide range of philosophical and literary texts, Dauber examines the response of sentimental writers to their growing awareness of love's lack of foundation, the waywardness with which individuals dispose themselves as they succeed and fail in achieving a viable "we." The Logic of Sentiment traces the movement from sentimentality to realism, the relation between epistemology and ethics, and the kind of investments that writers attempt to solicit from their readers"-- Provided by publisher. Earlier discussion of sentimentality tended to criticize writers who use sentimentality as deficient or just plain "bad". Treating sentimentality as a mode moves the critic into a more challenging and engaging analysis of Stowe in relation to writers who are often treated with more respect. Hifrommike65 (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is another example of the shifts in genre classification (here, in music): https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/03/15/genre-is-disappearing-what-comes-next Hifrommike65 (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)