User talk:Jkelly/Archive01

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between September 2 2005 and November 7 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User talk:Jkelly/Archive02. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Jkelly 20:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC) --

This page was refactored into subject headings in this edit. To view comments on chronological order, see the previous edit.

---

Welcome
Hey there, . Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian and decide to stay! Here are a few good links for newcomers (or "oldcomers" for reference):

By the way, you should sign and date your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. Three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Great, just what we need around this place... more Jkellys. :) Cheers. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Other greetings
JUST SAYIN' HI. I'M NEW 2. I B CAME A WIKIPEDIAN ON SEPT. 15, 2005. WHERE RU FROM? I'M FROM OHIO. RU INTO SPORTS? WHAT BOUT MUSIC? PEACE! C2 aaron

Bonjour
Parlez-vous en francais? Ah. Ne pas me dire que quel est bon ou mauvais. Au revior. --Winnermario 01:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you take dire to mean dis and quel to mean quelque chose, and move pas to the right place, it starts to make sense. But quite aside from his resort to dodgy French, I'm starting to think that any attempt to have an intelligent dialogue with Winnermario is a waste of one's time. (My most concerted attempt so far has been in Talk:One Sweet Day.) -- Hoary

Thoughts on Wikipedia
I have to say, the comments on your user page are among the most profound that I have seen here. I wholeheartedly concur with your views and assessments!--Lordkinbote 05:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I take it that means you'll help out with the distribution of the card game? Jkelly 05:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Distribution, maybe &mdash; otherwise, I'd be way out of my depth. And keep up your fine review of Sicilian Baroque.--Lordkinbote 19:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Brain Teasers:
Hi, I'm just posting a friendly notice stating that I have got Brain Teasers on my user page that you're welcome to have a go at. Will post new questions one day after they have been answered. Thanks... Spawn Man 05:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Cousins?
It looks like you and I might be "cousins" of a sort, from one of your contributions. Specifically the article referencing Kenny and Tzipporah. --Vidkun 14:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks and replies
''Thanks for all the vandalism reverting you've done in the last couple of days. Jkelly 16:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)''


 * No problem, I appreciate your message. --Canderson7 17:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome:-)xanandax 21:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 16:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you very much for your support. :) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Success!!! Thanks for your support! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please look at this RfA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite Zeq 12:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM
Thanks. Yes, I know about the album-project; I've argued on the template page and the project page that the timing style in the infobox goes against the Manual of style, creates an inconsistency within album articles (tracks being listed "mm:ss"), and is inconsistent with the songs project. No-one disagreed, but no-one could be bothered to change it (I don't know how, and I haven't had time to sit down and search out the relevant help pages). In the meantime I've been editing in accordance with the Manual of style (which is policy, and so outranks the albums project). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That's great. I don't suppose you know how to edit the template?  I've no doubt it's very easy, but I've never had rason to do it before. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

re: those infoboxes
I'm about to go to bed myself, but if I get time tomorrow night, I'll try and look at them. I resorted at first to simply cutting them down to conform with the template; I'm sure that by changing the infobox class, the boxes can be made to look just like the template-created ones (without having to replace all of the code). Would that suffice, or should we make a point of using the template? --FuriousFreddy 04:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikilinking years
Sorry, I should have made it clearer. It's true that many editors (and I tend to side with them) argue against the linking of years unless they're especially relevant to the article. When they're part of dates, though, the issue is different; the User preferences depend upon dates like 13 November Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

AK Comics
Hi! I noticed you moved my new entry AK Comics to AK comics (small case). But Comics have a capital C here, along the lines of Marvel Comics. If you do a google you'll notice it is always spelt with a capital "C", including on their home page. Could you or someone move the wiki page back to the original case. Thanks! M Alan Kazlev 04:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Re Cuisine of Kentucky
Sorry for the confusion you probably experienced on the AfD for the above article. The AfD was badly formed by the original submitter and it took me some time to sort the mess out. It looks like you got your opinion in both places. I added a note to the second page to hopefully guide everyone else to a single place. --GraemeL (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You Give Good Love

 * I have expanded the article providing sources. I would be grateful if you could have a look. Capitalistroadster 10:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have responded in some length to your message on my talk page. Thanks for replying. Your response has led me to the need for arguing for a change in WP:music and I will be putting a case for such changes on the Wikiproject music, songs and albums page. Thanks for taking the trouble of posting your thoughtful reply. Capitalistroadster 20:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Notability criteria for songs

 * I have placed my take on musical notability guidelines for song articles on the WP:music talk page. I would welcome your comments. Capitalistroadster 09:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

TSOM albums
Hello.

With all due respect, I'd like to point out that the original change was made by you, one-sidedly, not by me. I merely returned the status-quo, and believe that you'd have to provide the arguments for changing it.

With that said, in my opinion, labelling the output of the band as "gothic" is a contraversial move, as band themselves and considerate group of their fans don't consider it gothic - as noted in both The Sisters of Mercy and Gothic rock. Both sides probably have solid arguments, and the best we can do is try and remain neutral - which is exactly what the Alternative rock tag does. - ASN 09:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Rather than adding to the discussion on the Talk page, I've gone ahead and changed the genre in the infobox to "Gothic rock", leaving the previous "Alternative rock" underneath and adding a note in the text about Eldritch's view of the "Goth" label. I'll be glad to back you up if it gets reverted back. -- keep sleep ing   say what  03:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Aradia
No, I saw it was wikilinked on another article so I linked it there. I did later notice that it went to a half-finished article about a mythical historical character, but that there was also another one about the supposed goddess (Aradia (goddess)). I was pondering what to do about the link when I got distracted reading the related articles! Thanks for reminding me. Paul B 16:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Just My Imagination (Running Away With Me) and War (song)
Thanks for the acknowldegment. I'm sorta going into semi-WikiRetirement, although I would like to look up more information on "War" (and on Edwin Starr in geberal). But for right now, I've got a lot of freelance work to finish up. Peace and love. --FuriousFreddy 10:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Silver RavenWolf POV
Hi, thanks for the request for info. I've posted a response to your question on the talk for the article. While the subject matter isn't of personal interest to me, I like to see that Wikipedia articles hew to NPOV as much as possible, even on obscure topics. LeFlyman 18:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The White Stripes
Re: The White Stripes, Rolling Stone quote - I really don't like external links in the body of an article but I inserted it there for now. - Ted Wilkes 21:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Lord Byron
Hi there, Had my first look at the Byron page today and didn't notice the problems with the categories. Looking at the history, it appears a sweep of changes made by Iago Dali converted the See Also links into categories. Some of Iago's changes are definitely questionable. He removed mention of the "mad, bad and dangerous to know" quotation completely for instance, even though its one of the most famous phrases used to describe Byron. I dont think he's a vandal, just he made some odd editing decisions. Probably easy to change the categories back to See Also. Probably should check if Iago "misplaced" anything else too. Bwithh 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks!! =) Bwithh 20:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sicilian Baroque
Thank you for your comments on FAC. Brisvegas has made a copy edit and some subtle changes, would you like to have another look. Thanks Giano | talk 14:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Violent Femmes
That was quick!

How did you get to that page the instant I posted the changes? As for the redlinking, I had hoped that someone would write an entry for the Deluxe Edition, since it has three times the songs. A track listing, at least, would be helpful. I suppose we can leave it unlinked until then. Is that fair? Freekee 17:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems cumbersome for me to talk to you here, and you talk to me on my talk page. Is there a more convenient place to have a conversation? I've got this page on my watchlist at the moment, so you can answer me here, if you wish.


 * Can you get notification of changes, or did you just happen to check your watchlist at the very moment I made the change?


 * And I'm sorry that my note on the changes page makes it look like I was talking about fixing your code, rather than my own. Freekee 22:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/God-man
Jkelly, Since you seemed to know what you were talking about, want to make this a dis-amb now? brenneman (t) (c) 06:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Spiddal
No pics at present. I'll see if I can take some next time I'm in Ireland.--File Éireann 22:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Fascism Page
You recently asked some questions on the fascism page which I might be able to answer. The individual who has inserted the stuff on the new Deal was Hogeye, who has been something of a problem user (with several bans and RfCs) and professes something akin to libertarian capitalism. I've noticed his edits because of his disruptive influence on some of the pages I've been cleaning up. These particular edits are based in real claims, the New Deal has been described as fascist by certain liberals and libertarians with an axe to grind, but I don't know if that makes it relevant to the article or anything other than POV mud slinging. At the very least there needs to be some indication of the specific source so the reader knows where this POV is coming from.

Hogeye also recently put a graph in the facism article that is over-simplified and highly POV (for example, it puts Benjamin Tucker in the middle despite his explicit declarations as a socialist and rejection of capitalism). I would have fixed both of these things but have been busy cleaning up other articles he is editing and don't want to get involved in a personal dispute, thought I would alert someone to what is going on. Revkat 04:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, mostly because I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of fascism to engage in edits of those articles, so feel free to use or dismiss this information as you see fit. Revkat 04:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Canada Article
Hi. It had been written in the Canada article that canada had originally been a federation of former british colonies. I objected to this, because they were not former british colonies. They were still just as british before and after confederation. Then, some one didn't like that phrase, and took it out all together. Then it got put back, but phrased a lot better, but again including the word former. I just got rid of the word former, thinking that that had just been a result of putting the rest back in. But now that you replaced it, I realized that there is a reason that you think it belongs. Could you clarify that for me please?

The Waterboys
I've just seen it, and was adding a warning message to the anon's Talk page when I edit-conflicted with you. Glad to see that things are improving.

As to The Waterboys, I'll certainly look in. (I only have one of their albums, but that's one more than I have of most of the "artists" whose articles I've been involved with lately.) --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is solid. The only things I thought it needed I did myself: I bulleted the list of performers, and I formatted the discography to match the ususal Wikipedia style (are those really all of the singles they've had). You might want to add about two album covers to the middle section to add some color to the long section of text.

PS. Cool band, btw. I should check their stuff out. --FuriousFreddy 02:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah...big difference in sound, although both are quite good. I know how you feel about everything: Wikiepdia becomes a less and less pleasant place everyday. I saw the exchange between Winnermario and eo, where she said things to him that I hoped I'd never have to read here. I've actually started telling some of my friends & co-workers about the problems on Wikipedia, and they all have the same answer: leave. So... I'm gradually phasing out my contributions. I think it's Wikipedia's increasing popularity that's causing the problems: more and more people, who could really care less about encyclopedia standards (I, having been a strange child, read encyclopedia volumes for fun) and civility. I imagine unless some sort of strict quality control system is implimented (I've read Jimbo talking about doing such, after the whole Bill Gates/Jane Fonda quality debacle), it's going to simply gradually crumble in overall credibility.

Examples:
 * Rosa Parks just passed away, and some users want to get her article featured. However, there's been a large addition of POV text that reads well for Jet magazine, but not for the purposes of an encycliopedia. I don't imagine, however, it'll get cleaned up unless someone sits down and dedicates themself to doing such (that used to be my calling-card).
 * Snoop Dogg and most related articles on albums, singles, and mixtapes (are mixtapes within our scope of coverage?). "Carey-cruft" has nothing on this. All the work of basically one person, who seemed a little confused when I informed him of the quality concerns. I had sat down to begin rewriting some of the articles, when I blew the whistle and said "no more". Ususally, Wikipedia editing takes up most of my after-work day (especially with re-writes like that); my art supplies and music production tools miss me.

But yeah...good luck with your break. Hope you get all the stress out of your system.

P.S. Free of the influence of Wikipedia for a few days, I was actually able to listen to Mariah Carey again without worrying about the problems here. Her "We Belong Together", 40+ punched-in vocal takes and final-chorus divulge into melisma aside, is not at all a bad song. --FuriousFreddy 03:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Waterboyses
Hi. Congratulations on your continuing good work on "your" article -- but I happened to notice your question to Mel about its relegation (?) via a disambig page.

That movie is very well known where I happen to live, and although a quick Google suggests a certain uncertainty between Waterboys and Water Boys, I note that the NYT has reviewed it under the former title. I think it deserves an article, under the title "Waterboys" (or "Waterboys (film)" or whatever). I accept that "your" Waterboys are famous, but I hadn't heard of them; for this reason, I find it a bit hard to believe that the band is overwhelmingly more famous than the flick, and thus tend to think that the creation of a disambig page is a Good Thing. The user who did this should of course have fixed a lot of links accordingly: if he/she did this, I don't think any other notification was necessary -- just as I didn't ask for any when I converted MPP to a disambig page and spent a couple of the most boring hours of my life converting a lot of instances of "MPP" to "MPP". -- Hoary 07:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've moved the disambiguation page to The Waterboys (disambiguation) and moved The Waterboys back to where it belonged. I'm not really sure that a dab page is needed, to be honest; a "dablink" at the top of each page would have done. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point; I've added a redirect to the film at Water Boys. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: WP:ALBUM
Now that you mention WP:NOR, it's got me thinking that it would be a good idea to explicitly mention on WP:ALBUM to avoid original research on album pages. Specifically, people seem to have a tendency to list bands and albums that influenced or were influenced by the album, without heeding WP:CITE or at the very least describing why a connection exists. Besides Ziggy Stardust, I also encountered this travesty here.—jiy (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Cool (song)
Not a problem, my friend. --Hollow Wilerding 03:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

War of Vandal12
It really is extraordinary, isn't it? I wish I knew what was so special about the War of 1812...perhaps a bunch of Americans who are still bitter about the White House/Canadians who are still bitter about York. Who can tell? Lord Bob 02:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

CSD spotting
Thank you for spotting so many Candidates for Speedy Deletion. I have deleted most of them. &mdash; J I P | Talk 18:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy speedies! That's me, hombre. Fastest wiki-worker in the West! Literally! :) Thanks for the help and the smile. - Lucky 6.9 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

RfD
Hi there. I don't normally worry about redirects. But you said you wanted to keep Gh3y, to avoid it being turned into an article. The correct way to achieve that (sensible) aim is to delete the article and protect it against recreation (a very straightforward act) rather than to retain a redirect. Retaining the redirect means that the original article, and any future incarnation can be resurrected with a simple revert. We should not, imo, point the word Gh3y to Gay as if the two are somehow encyclopedically related. I wonder if you will reconsider you comment with all that borne in mind? -Splash talk 04:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -Splash talk 13:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Bands failing WP:MUSIC
We need to get that policy changed. Both vanity and neologism are deserving of speedy deletion. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 01:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are planning a proposal, please let me know. Let's do it. How do we go about it? &asymp; jossi &asymp; 02:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Freddy's Four Fingers I made my decision to speedy based on the following information:
 * The same user posted another article that clearly needed to be speedied.
 * The article was improperly formatted and did not assert significance; sounded like "just another garage band", so to speak.
 * The website links provided in the article were being hosted by free website providers, which further added to the "just another garage band" prospect.

At any rate, it was restored by another user. -- tomf688 {talk} 01:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD tag removal
Luxurious Go ahead and put it back. Snowspinner 01:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

''Hi. Please don't remove AfD tags before the discussion at AfD is finished (here), even if you are the nominator. Also, please be careful in using an edit summary such as "rvv" when you are removing a new paragrpah contributed by another editor (here). You and I may agree that the paragraph doesn't belong in the article, but see Vandalism for a definition of vandalism. One reason that this is important is because of the three revert rule. Thanks. Jkelly 16:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)''


 * Hi...at the request of Gator1, I removed my AfD nomination, and we subsequently agreed to redirect the article. If I violated an AfD policy about which I am unaware, I apologize; I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that I had that authority as the nominator.  I have no problem with a disambiguation page...is the cartoon character a real cartoon character?  Also, I removed the stuff on the Christianity article as it was nonsensical, non-wiki-formatted, and placed by a vandal with a talk page full of warnings...it wasn't meant to be a legitimate contribution to the article; it was vandalism (the user has since been blocked).  Thanks for the heads ups...KHM03 18:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Linkspam
re: Wicca link addition Not a problem, it really doesn't look like a useful addition. And I'm not expecting any response from the talk page either.

Now what? If he adds it again then I would say he's in violation of the policy, making it fair game again and possibly an edit war. Unless he's willing to debate it on the talk pages or his 'user' page. Or he might just get bored and give up; who knows. I'll keep tabs on the article (like I'm sure most people do, since there's a handy page that lists all additions and if they're on top or not), so if you run the risk of falling afoul the 3R rule I'll be around eventually. --Cylik 20:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well he made an account, and you've moved his old talk page to it, so maybe he will come around and this can be settled peacefully. That's good; for now I'm leaving his revision in in the hopes it makes him more susceptible to a discussion.  If he hasn't said anything by tonight I guess I'll ax it so that he'll log in and see his message.  I'd hate to drive off someone who might turn out okay though.  You've been here longer so I'm guessing you've dealt with this sort of thing before; if you think it could be handled better let me know. --Cylik 22:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Policy
Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerns about my edits
Biographical articles

Hi JK, thank you for contributions to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography initiative, in particular the articles for Francis Kelly, James Butler Knill Kelly, and Jean-Baptiste Kelly. You will notice that I have gone through and copyedited each of these article to make them conform a little more closely to Wikipedia "house style". One concern that emerged was that certain passages of the articles bear an awful lot of similaritity to the corresponding Dictionary of Canadian Biography entries, which are protected by copyright. While I don't think that any of the examples rise to the level of outright copying, some are still just a little bit too derivative for comfort. I would therefore encourage you to revist these articles and see if you can't copyedit just a bit more to smooth out these bumps &mdash; it would be especially good if you are able to incorporate some information from other sources. In anycase, thank you again for your efforts! Regards, Fawcett5 13:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * JK, no problemo. Check out Louis Riel, which is a Featured article that used the DoCB article as a very important (although not exclusive) reference.  The attentive reader will still notice some echoes of the DoCB article, but it has been pretty carefully worked over to avoid the sort of problems I mentioned. Cheers, Fawcett5 19:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

four types of evidence
why did you do a redirect. four types of evidence are common terms Jeremybub 02:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

i think you might have it wrong because on the original article it listed an author but i deleted it because i thought it didn't belong, maybee you should check with the person who wrote it, they may have originally created that text if they are the author listed, try checking the first edit in the history--Jeremybub 23:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

i didn't realize it was copied from that website. nice job finding that Jeremybub 23:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

François Anthoine:
I noticed my article on François Anthoine was deleted, of sorts, & was wishing to say sorry if I infringed on any Wikipedia policies. I did not intend to break any policies, as it was an honest mistake... I do not wish to be blocked. However, I could not find any other info on him, & firstworldwar.com was my only source on him. So my question is, are we allowed to copy their info, but in our own words? If so, isn't that a bit double standard? Sort of like stealing a book, & then putting a different cover on its front? Plus, would it also to be possible to rewrite the François Anthoine article again in my own words? Or has firstworldwar.com got a copyright on all of world war one's information? All of my other edits are legal, I hope, unless I've unknownly broken more consealed laws & regulations.... Wearily, Spawn Man 23:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. Just incase you're wondering why I'm talking to you, I saw your name on the bottom of the article's page...

Mug shots
All mug shots (or at least all in the US) are ineligible for copyright because they public records and are made available to aid in law enforcement. --Fallout boy 19:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

New Madonna Image
The Madonna image: Ill make my case soon, just very busy right now. Or an  e    (t)   (c)   (@)  20:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to remind you that Im still coming to the image. I think that Ive seen it some place else, other than on the source Ive listed (maybe on a madonna page), so Im still looking for the image. Its also quite similar to Image:Madyoga1.jpg, so I also assumed that it was of the same copyright status. The fact that it was a press release pic means that the news page I got it from could be using it under that terms. Anyways, Im still checking. Cheers. Or an   e    (t)   (c)   (@)  00:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Whole set of images tagged
I added the information to those pictures thatI knew the copyright. I thought that because it is ok to use magazine covers that it would be ok to use calender covers as well. Soome of the pictures that you were concered were not mine, I mean that I was not the one who had uploaded them, so for those I can't say anything, cause unfortunately I don't know anything about them. I have read the wikipedia rules, and I'm trying to be more careful and check more carefully that what are the copyrights for pictures that I would like to use.

If you have more question, I will answer asap.

--L.a.m.b 21:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey. So when I upload a picture, do I then jsut write under the picture that where did I get the picture and if I scan the picture by myself, like I've done with the album covers that I have used, is it enough that I write that I've scanned it myself, or do I write that where is it scanned? And when I have uploaded a picture, how can I delete it? Or is there a way to delete that at all? Thanks

--L.a.m.b 22:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Gwencool.jpg
I added the URL to that picture. --L.a.m.b 10:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Keira Knightley
Hi, thanks for your input on the disputed fair use of images on this page. There seems to be some confusion amongst Wikipedia users on these issues, perhaps you contribute to the discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use also vote on the removal of the magazine covers at Images_and_media_for_deletion. Thanks Arniep 12:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I listed quite a few non models that appeared on the cover of Elle at Talk:Keira_Knightley(there may well be more). In light of this do you think the magazine cover can be considered fair use? Arniep 12:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Change to U.S. English on Did you know template
Somebody brought up the difference on the template's talk page, and I thought the change looked good; I'm a disgusting American, aren't I? :)  You can change it back if you think sceptic is more appropriate.  --Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 20:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: RfC on Pop Music issues
I'm losing faith that there will ever be any sort of reasonable discussion. I've been trying that for months. And now people think I'm "angry at pop music coverage" and "obsessed with R&B" (if I'm obsessed with R&B, then so is every other black person I know--that's almost a racist statement). All I wanted was for people ot follow the rules, for there to be consistency with all of the articles on songs, to determine how much information is too much information, and for people to not take possession of articles, gang up against deletion or merging of articles, and generally push the poor beleagured Wikipedia towards being a fansite. I, personally, do not care what those articles look like; I can't clean them up (there's just too many of them), and my changes are likely to be reverted anyway, so maybe I should just leave them alone. I'm tired, frustrated, adn worn out; I no longer feel like I'm doing the right thing. Maybe I should just let it go, and let the fancrufted, POV, and elongated articles on Mariah Carey and the other half dozen female singers stand as they are. I shouldn't have to stress myself to sickness, be distracted from my job, or have to argue with teenagers for the better interests of an editing community that doesn't seem to care. --FuriousFreddy 23:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the music project was to set defined guidelines so that issues like this do not happen. It's been rather slow to define them, and I'm not really sure why a lot of the time (I guess people would rather just keep on doing what they've been doing rather than work together for a change). --FuriousFreddy 00:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of them. And that's the problem; this wouldn't be an issue if the editors weren't reverting articles and/or challenging the cleanups. And until something is done on a big scale, the number of articles in need of attention is going to continue to grow. I once had a bad dream some time back about endlessly cleaning up Wikipedia articles (seriously!). I really need to concentrate on my jobs (yes, plural) and my freelance work more.

Oh, and I saw both of your comments (the one about fixing the RfC I saw this morning before work, the one on Rodney King just now). I worked on the RfC page a bit following your suggestions; is there anything else you would suggest? Lemme read the Rodney King issue history. --FuriousFreddy 23:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yikes. I'll never feel sorry for Rodney King again. Granted, he shouldn't have had the tar beaten out of him, but he did resist police orders and assaulted officers. At any rate, Amadou Diallo got a lot worse of a deal out of a similar issue. But referring to the buffalo thing, it seems rather hyperbolic and it really isn't neccessary. --FuriousFreddy 00:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

And that is my point. I try so very hard ot give O.W. the benefit of the doubt. I don't like having to be hard-nosed with anybody, but I'm certainly not going to put up with these type of back-and-forth shenanigans that he pulls people into. He accuses me of yelling at him without telling him what was wrong; I wrote several paragraphs detailing such on the RfC talk page at least a day ago. The problem, I fear, is that either he's not reading my comments (and I am therefore writing them in vain) or he;s choosing to ignore them so that he can cause controversy. I don't know which it is, or if it's another reason, or why.

And, no, we certainly can't (and shouldn't) go through with this for the 200 or so other articles that fall under this problem. It's not required of editors to explain why and how we are cleaning up articles (outside of edit summaries, and by "cleaning up", I don't mean doing a rewrite that's going to change the entire point of the article or violate policy/guidelines by painting my POV over it or vandalizing it--I mean the general copyedits, formatting, trimming of excessive material, categorization, formatting, tidying fact-checking), unless someone asks us to explain ourselves, we're taking out something controversial/debated/questionable-looking, or if we're doing a major change to an article. If it is, not only is that news to me, but absolutely no one seems to be doing it (otherwise, every talk page should be at least a mile long and a couple dozen archives deep).

I've done the "explicitly pointing out what's wrong and why" routine several times with O.W., and in various internet media. I almost didn't get up for my new job talking to this kid. I can't be losing sleep trying to educate people on how to write an encyclopedia if everytime I do so, they turn around and tell me that I didn't. --FuriousFreddy 03:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL. Did you see that? He told me I have no reasoning, and that I had issues, and that he felt like he was...my therapist! So many personal attacks in one day...and I didn't get a thing for him! But anyways, I think I've just realized the ridiculousness of going back, back, forth & forth endlessly. Any and all frustration or stress I felt just went sailing out the window. I'm going to get a pizza. --FuriousFreddy 03:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Cliche finding
New horizons in Wikipop Sorry I couldn't help you with your last question; I hope you've been luckier elsewhere. I've discovered a new minor diversion: do a Google search for "[INSERT GRUESOME CLICHE HERE]" site:wikipedia.org, for example "tender age" site:wikipedia.org. Extraordinary stuff turns up. How about Sean Conlon, for example? -- Hoary 13:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Mel on dashes
Thanks for providing that link; it's very helpful. I knew that I had seen Mel writing something about dashes recently. I must drop him a note telling him not to bother replying. Thanks again. Ann Heneghan (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerns about civility (others')
I'd just like Spawn Man to leave me alone. Yes, I called him a self-righteous asshole, but I immediately thought better of it and reverted the edit. Then he brings it up on my talk page; I replied to him and deleted it from my talk page. He brings it up again, and threatens me with action. Maybe if he would let the thing die, we could leave each other alone.--Prosfilaes 21:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for listening. I know that Wikipedia doesn't always bring out the best in me, but I really am trying to let this one die.--Prosfilaes 21:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:Winnermario
Will do - I'll keep it in mind, however I can't promise I'll just let her off the hook if she exclaims something completely unfounded or insults me personally. I'm trying to counter her exclamations with questions that would (hopefully) just make her step back and think for a moment... I don't think she would accept other people's comments as gospel if we were to issue them to her in the manner she gives them to us. I'll cool it for a bit and see how the conversation goes. -- eo 20:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

eep.
I tried, I really did. But she commented on my Talk Page and went too far. Sorry she didn't even appreciate your attempt to stick up for her. -- eo 01:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)