User talk:Learner001

Location
RE your recent addition to the Jimi Hendrix article; I always like to include a location when citing to a DVD. Do you know the location of the event? Thanks. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  16:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "location" for the DVD.Learner001 (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, like event occurs at 45 minutes and 36 seconds, for example. We really shouldn't cite to a book without including a page number or a DVD without including a location. Otherwise, its a really nice addition, but a FA needs tighter sourcing. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, when we quote someone, we need to include an in-line attribution as well as a cite. E.g., "According to John Doe, so who exactly made the comment that you quoted? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, pending event location and speaker identification, I've removed your recent addition. If you can provide a location and attribute the speaker, we will discuss adding the quote back, though on reflection, it seems more like a many-years-after-the-fact type of analysis that runs the risk of sounding like revisionist puffery; Hendrix burned the guitar as a PR gimmick, not a political statement. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems the larger issue is that you don't see Hendrix as a part of the counterculture. From a political standpoint, I concur entirely, but you must consider the fact that he was seen - then and now - as highly significant to 1960s youth culture. So we're talking about the era generally as well the many components of the era, some of which Hendrix was intergral to, and some of which he was not. As to the cite: please watch the Youtube version of the documentary, which was produced by Oregon Public TV, accepted, and nationally broadcast by PBS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUc2eLe-ruI. Hendrix at Monterey starts about 14:00 in. The statement is made by the narrator, reading a script written by the production team. As to "puffery" :), perhaps, but all latter-day history runs a risk of that, whether speaking to music, or the larger culture within which the music flourished. If you'd like additional sources as to JH and the counterculture, I can load you up on them, ad nauseum. My intent is simply to note (in passing, essentially) Jimi's significance to his larger era, and not bog down the article with material that might detract from his musical accomplishments, which I believe you rightfully seek to keep in focus. Please note the location of the quote within cite as you see fit and restore the edit, if possible. Best wishes on FA! The article is worthy. Please let me know if there's anything on your to-do list I might be able to assist on!Learner001 (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely disagree regarding Hendrix and the counter-culture, but as I said, its all after-the-fact hindsight stuff. Nobody, that I know of, at the time thought Hendrix's guitar burning was a political statement, and including the quote there as it was implies that people at the time made this connection; I seriously doubt that they did. Also, Hendrix and others close to him have repeatedly stated that this type of stuff was done for attention and PR, not to make political statements. That's essentially the core of what concerns me, that it attempts to give a new meaning to an old stunt. Perhaps, much of what Hendrix stood for was counter-culture oriented, but certainly not the guitar destruction, which was really just attempts to outdo the Who.


 * Also, generally speaking, the narrator of a film is not in itself a notable speaker. If the speaker were a biographer, musicologist, or critic, it might hold some weight, but as it is the quote is little more than a bit of voice-over; its not really culled from a serious critical analysis. Did someone notable make the statement, or is it an unidentified comment made by the writers of the doc? When we quote someone we must always attribute the quote in-line, and it would be awkward to state that an unknown narrator of a documentary made the comment, which really should be attributed to the person who wrote the passage, not the person who did the voice-over. Thanks for the kind and encouraging words. BTW. Cheers! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Got it. Look, this is not that important, but the source is good, and if you're interested in the truth, please don't pre-judge based on your own PR or opinion, even though I tend to agree with your take. I understand your concerns for FA, so I'll let it go in deference to that for now. So, in the meantime, I won't edit as to the cc subject, but instead I'll send some thoroughly cited prose for a small section for later consideration. I suggest that the article give a bit more attention to Jimi's personality, the '60s mindset which he interacted with, and era context generally. Perhaps these elements need to be more fully developed in this, a bio article. Jimi was a dynamic and complex human being living in an important, fast-paced era. He was not simply an awesome guitar player. My two bits. Happy NY & Cheers as well!Learner001 (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * For thought: Not sure if this is worthy of discussion in the article, but the night after he was released on bail following the Canada bust, he spoke on stage before they went into Machine Gun: (paraphrasing the difficult-to-transcribe words) "I'd like to dedicate this one...to all the soldiers fighting in Chicago, Milwaukee, and New York. And the soldiers fighting in Vietnam."


 * I consider this to perhaps be gratuitous and concur with you that although he was being pulled to join in many leftist causes, his heart was never really in it. He wanted to create music, first and foremost. You could also make the case that, like many, JH was ultimately as much a victim of the era as he was a participant.Learner001 (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, that comment made during the BoG shows, his participation in an anti-Vietnam festival, and his participation in a Black Panther benefit represent the sum total of his political involvement. You could argue that some of his lyrics also go there, and he certainly mentioned the hippy movement during interviews, but there is not much outside WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. That's not to say that Jimi was strictly apolitical, but in general it does not strike me as especially notable to his bio (the reliable sources tend to agree with that assertion). Arthur Allen tells a story whereby Jimi bought a Black Panther paper in an effort to impress he and his brother Albert, but it was obvious that Jimi wasn't really interested in getting too involved. I think that, had he lived another year, this would have changed and he would have become more vocal, but alas it was not to be. Happy New Year! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Countless musicians during the era dabbled in politics, and lyrics in and of themselves may or may not be significant, unless you're a protest singer (per se') ala (early) Dylan, who was a musical inspiration for JH, but probably not much of a political mentor, as it were. The whole Black Panther thing for J seems to have a bit (or more) of coercion written on it. So, perhaps your comment above is the crux of an important graph or two. Along the lines of references to the "fact" that when J became a smash in the US, morons in the audience wanted to see him come unglued and burn/destroy his equipment. This goes back to the point that misperception can play as an important role in so-called history as can the truth, viz. your "gimmick" note concerning Monterey, trying to top the Who after he asked not to follow them...Best wishes for '14Learner001 (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:The Curse of Oak Island
Category:The Curse of Oak Island, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 29 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Jerry Garcia page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=606346934 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F606346934%7CJerry Garcia%5D%5D Ask for help])

Counting the countercultures
My apologies for not getting back to you in a few days. My Wikipedia hours have been spent on a seemingly endless search and restroy mission after I watched the film '12 years a slave', started to edit and connect the slave articles through the templates, got bogged down in adding See also entries for the slave lists, got put into chains myself via editing discoveries which just kept coming and chaining, and I must have done 1,000 edits on the slave pages, most of those in an effort to link everything to everyone at the same time. Thus my attention on the '60s has lingered in the 1860s. On the counter-culture page, I'd say the more detail the better, as the topic is quite important and massive. I'll be happy to attempt to help with it at some points, and will explain my edits in the summary boxes, and will only edit things I know or format stuff. I like the timeline, and had an idea to separate it a bit in sections so the pre-1960 set-up section is marked as such. Much of that will have to wait until I get my heads both out of the clouds and out of the 1860s. And it's good to see that someone is sheparding the page, nice work! Randy Kryn 13:17 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Yeah, WP can become very time-consuming. It will be great to have your participation when you get the chance! Learner001 (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Counterculture of the 1960s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Look Magazine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=621363917 your edit] to Counterculture of the 1960s may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. ''I did this also when I was new. '' Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm not sure as to what material your message refers.Learner001 (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of 1960s counterculture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Times They Are A-Changin'. 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) 11:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of 1960s counterculture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Look Magazine. 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) 11:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of 1960s counterculture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coda. 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) 09:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of 1960s counterculture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingsmen. 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) 10:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ''This change is entirely unwarranted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_1960s_counterculture&diff=757611723&oldid=756800744 It is not in the leastest related to the 1949 event, if you continue to perform this type of vandalism I will bring it to WP:AN/I'' Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 00:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Disruptive Editing? I wrote virtually the entire page. Please read the book (1984), or at least the entry. The cite refers to the "Thought Police" and modern political correctness. Bring the issue to whomever you like, but please read the book first. Thanks. Best wishes Learner001 (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That source is unrelated. I find it rather amusing that you assume anyone this day and age hasn't read that book. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 16:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In all good faith, I don't understand what you don't understand. Please elaborate on why you find this cite unrelated to the concept of "Thought Police" and political correctness. Best wishes Learner001 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, zero GF or even a tiny sense of desire for a discussion or consensus of any kind offered? Only threats? Replacing cite. PLEASE DO NOT REVERT without discussion on talk page. Learner001 (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi
...and thanks for bringing my attention back to the '60s timeline. Worked on it and came up with a lot of minor (but Wikipedian important) grammar-mark edits, and did add to the Chicago Seven material. Seems to be a very good page. I'll toss it on my watch list as well, thanks for the good advice. Randy Kryn 16:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and thank you for the good work, and for adding this to your watch list! Learner001 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Please stop making disruptive edits. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 12:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Your bully tactics fall on deaf ears here. You need to follow your own advice above. If you persist I can assure you that I will pursue action with administration. Unfortunately, edit warring and being blocked are apparently routine parts of your WP experience, but they are not routine for other contributors. In any event, take your issues with the article to the article talk page for conscientious discussion and, if necessary, RfC. Learner001 (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk:Timeline of 1960s counterculture or WP:ANI -- pick one of these please, because filling up the history of the article with an edit war is unacceptable. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 19:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"Language barrier"
Without commenting whatsoever on the merits of a content dispute at an article I have no real interest in, I couldn't agree more with your suggestion that there is a language barrier imposing certain practical constraints on the editor's ability to work effectively in English article space. Fact checker _ at your service 18:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

May 4 1953 - Aldous Huxley reverted to incorrect version
Hi - this is the second time this entry has been changed to the wrong information. As explained in the summation of my last edit - 'it is the day that Huxley tried psychedelics for the 1st time leading to the term and the 1954 essay in the links'. The book wasn't published until the following year, but I thought the event was significant as the term psychedelic runs in many forms through the entire counterculture. Hopefully we can reach a consensus on this. BorisAndDoris (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, I had no problem whatsoever with the content of the edit, but you also included content already noted in a subsequent entry, and I had difficulty trying to easily reconcile all entries and sourcing (please also see related entries under 1955 and 1956). See if you can review and reconcile the total accordingly. Also, we've desperately :) tried to keep the tense of the article entries consistent, so perhaps edit prose accordingly. Otherwise, I again have no issues on the excellent content! Best Wishes! Learner001 (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Learner001


A tag has been placed on User:Learner001 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CptViraj (📧) 15:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)