User talk:Seduisant/Archive 2

Woodstock Festival
Hi, just wondering how we could make sure that the Woodstock Festival page gets properly updated. I am trying to get some information on there so that people know that there is now an official Woodstock website. The site is www.woodstock.com and it launched in June. The site contains all kinds of information and official images from past Woodstock festivals, and I think this would be of interest to people who are interested in Woodstock. The site is also now a social network for people who are music lovers and who frequently attend concerts.

I have tried to edit the page to add this information but it got removed. Please let me know why this is happening.

Thanks Lonispecialops (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Woodstock Ventures, which is made up of two of the founders of the Woodstock Festival, is behind this site and it features a lot of information on the Woodstock Festivals. So I guess I'm not sure why this doesn't make this site the official site? Lonispecialops (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Public Enemies
Thanks for your unsolicited review. I can't wait to see this and hopefully, contrary to practice, it won't be delayed until a DVD release. This film combines two things that I don't necessarily consider congruent, which are Michael Mann, whose films I don't always like, and Johnny Depp, who can do little wrong in my book (and this opinion is very pre-Pirates). I'm compelled to see it, mostly because of my interest in all things Depp-film related, John Dillinger and the fact that I live in Indiana and part of it was filmed here, in a place where time has made little impact on the infrastructure and small-town perspective. I get a bit annoyed when I start seeing edits pop up refuting the "historical accuracy" of films. Of course they aren't going to be historically accurate, they are fictionalized versions of history and it takes a special kind of "inside the box" viewpoint to think they are documentaries furthering an historical perspective. To use a Depp film, do people actually think that Caribbean pirates were involved in mysticism or voodoo? Was The Untouchables an historical portrayal? It annoys me. But in any case, Michael Mann can certainly capture atmosphere, and some reviewer wrote that it manages to combine art with action in a most appealing way. I'll gladly sit through that sort of combination for even 3 hours in a theater. Will I buy the DVD? Count on it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We think alike. I wait anxiously for whatever Depp does next. To my great chagrin, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences does not seem to share my enthusiasm. That begs a couple questions. The first is whether he's just so constantly great that his performances get lost, and the other is does what Oscar think really matter? He will eventually win one, but I agree - an award made only once, for him, would be appropriate. I thought Dead Man was quite interesting, I only happened to catch it late one night on a cable channel. It's very representational of Depp choosing projects out of purely intrinsic interest. The only film of his I wasn't crazy about was Blow, but that didn't make him any less great in it. In any case, I'll try to leave my thoughts when I finagle someone into taking me to the cinema. Regards. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Woodstock Festival - revisited
Thought I would give it another shot with trying to edit the Woodstock Festival page with this video from Sony which features 2 of the founders of the Woodstock Festival speaking about their joint venture in creating the site as a nod to a live music focused social networking site. Check the link here for the video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXOXrn_9dmY. I think this is good proof that www.woodstock.com is the official home for all things involving Woodstock. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks Lonispecialops (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for the barnstar - i was about reaching the end of my rope on that one, so it's a very timely reminder that patience is worthwhile. Sssoul (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

and help help 8)
if you have time to stop by the Little Richard article and talk page, it would be real helpful to have some more voices chiming in on the question of whether or not that "Influence" section needs editing. thanks if you can comment ... Sssoul (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Medcab
I saw that someone had accepted the case, but I haven't seen that the new editor has accepted the invitation to take part. I'm not expecting that to happen, though. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Irimote Cat
Hello Séduisant,

I don't know if you are an Iriomote cat lover, if so, then take a look at Talk:Iriomote_Cat/to do (or my announcement). I collected a bunch of good sources for this issue ;), and I then return to my own field : Chinese history, etc. Yug (talk)  15:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sam Yasgur
You expressed interested earlier in a prospective AfD. Note that the article has been nominated for deletion.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Leopard
Hey, I will try and clean up Leopard and add a few things, might take me some time though. Also wondering about your thoughts on the rossete's??? regards ZooPro (talk)


 * I have cleaned up the rosettes article to better reflect its actual meaning. Have made some changes to Leopard and Jaguar feel free to edit anything that i have missed or needed to mention. I will bring Leopard and Tiger up to GA status, i will copy leopard into my Sandbox and work on it as much as possible, feel free to stop by and edit it yourself i dont mind. I will look over all the recomendations given on the talk page and work them out 1 by 1. Have spent sometime reviewing merge notices on most of the "Big Cat" articles and have removed a few (im sure will stire some interest). Im also considering starting a "Wild Cats" project page that will deal with all the Big Cat and Small Cat articles. I will also be reading all the Cat articles to rank wich ones need the most attention. and will hopefully remove all the Stub notices. Have fun and like i said feel free to play around with leopard on my sandbox.  ZooPro (talk)

Discussion at Talk:White Amur Tiger#Merge Proposal
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. ascidian | talk-to-me  15:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC) (Using )

Crikey
I swear mate every article i come across seems to have u fighting vandalism in it. I take my hat off to u once again, i can barely keep up. Great to know someone is dedicated to protecting wikipedia. ZooPro (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Zoo
Please consider joining WP:ZOO i am in desperate need of members. Regards  Zoo Pro  01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Too many tiger photos
Some people are slap happy with tags.  Zoo Pro  05:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Mammals
Dont feel like taking control of Portal:Mammals do you??, its been neglected for around 12 months needs some help. I have overloaded myself with WikiProject Zoo, Animals, Mammals, Amphibians and Reptiles and Portal:Animals and the list keeps growing. Just thought you might be interested, given your experience with felids and mammal articles. Regards  Zoo Pro  11:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Those Darlins


The article Those Darlins has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:BAND notability criteria.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Triwbe (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Yes White Tiger is a mess i know, was one of the reasons i had it Semi Protected a anon user kinda destroyed it. In regards to Portal Coordinator no deadline and there is no official process for a neglected portal, to become the coordinator usually on a working portal it is a consenses vote from the WikiProject in this case it would be the Mammals Project however that also lacks a Coordinator (want that job aswell) its more of a "If you want it have it sucker" kinda thing (and that portal hasnt been edited in over a year) so if u want it its yours. I reckon we should have an awesome badge though, would look cool, i just used some top icons on my page that turned out well. In regards to its problems i think a general fix will work, i am happy to help however i have multiple Projects to look after so may take me some time. I will also keep a look out for a free image of Saliega. Have fun  Zoo Pro  01:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Those Darlins
A tag has been placed on Those Darlins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from a newbie
Seduisant,

I'm new to contributing to wikipedia, so I apologize if this is the wrong way to go about contacting you. I did read the wikipedia tutorial for newbies and if I understood it, adding a section to the bottom of another contributor's talk page was recommended.

I recently added some info about the Wang 1200 word processor to the Wang Laboratories page. I agree I didn't add citations, and that may be grounds for removal, although I often see "Citations needed" added in such cases. However, part of your reason for deleting my contribution was that things were factually wrong. Even if it has nothing to do with wikipedia page, I'd like to know more information about the wang 1200, as I am the author of the cited [wang 1200] web page.

You deleted the reference to the photocomposition option. This is a pdf of Wang's brochure for it. I thought it was interesting in that it relates to the fact that the Linasec machine was Dr. Wang's first successful product. Did you delete the reference because it was too trivial (fair enough), or because the product never existed (despite the brochure)?

You also deleted reference to the Wang 1222. This page contains schematics for the product. Again, did you delete it because it was a trivial addition, or because you think the product didn't exist? I thought it was interesting because it shows the movement in sophistication toward using a CRT instead of solely using the selectric for editing.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goiter (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I just found this link too; it isn't all that authoritative sounding, but it does reinforce the idea that the 1200 didn't sell that well (3000 machines total), and had reliability problems: google books link 99.69.147.169 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sheetheads.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sheetheads.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  06:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cats
Hello. You have listed yourself as a member of WikiProject Cats. I would appreciate your help in creating Canadian Cat Association, which is a request on the to-do list. Thank you,  Bramble  claw  x   03:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cats discussion
Hello active member of Wikiproject Cats. There is currently a discussion as to whether or not feline acne shoudl be merged into cat skin disorders here. Your opinion would be valued.  Bramble  claw  x   23:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

jaguar, snow leopard
Hi,

I noticed you keep on deleting my links. How aren't they beneficial? Is there any way I can improve them? Snowleopard100 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Seduisant.

As I see you do a lot of AV work, do want me to put in a request for you to get rollback? It is much faster than undo. Just tell me if you want it. Thanks! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added the request. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker
I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding Rollback and User rollback to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering!  upstate NYer  02:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Yes i agree an extremely trustworthy user and i am sure it will come in handy quite often with that very large watchlist. Zoo Pro 04:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for nominating a page you know nothing about for deletion. Very smart! Trying to improve Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowleopard100 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Boston College
I think we should use other instead of for2 because the specificity is not required.174.3.98.236 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For example, the disambig descriobes (but does not list) a research institution, which is not an academic institution.174.3.98.236 (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you undid my captioning of the BC motto photo as "Ad majorem Dei gloriam", and said to see the page of the motto in question. Well, the article in question clearly states that both are acceptable and equivalent.  More to the point, the actual picture I was captioning has "majorem".  Finally, the motto of the SJ is not a classical Latin text, in St. Ignatius Loyola's time it was quite usual to write Latin with Js and so there is nothing "more accurate" about writing it with an i.  But whatever, Wikipedia clearly means a lot more to you than it does to me, so if you want to keep "maiorem" in the caption of a picture of the word "majorem", be my guest. --194.98.58.121 (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

mistake
I am really sorry for how adversarial I've been and for vandalizing you page. It is not at all what I should have done. Would you forgive me? Is there any way to make it up to you? Please let me know. --Snowleopard100 (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowleopard100 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

EDIT
hello....excuse me. I'm curious why the attitude. Cougars are not lions, and many have been confused by that. And lions and cougars are of different species as well as different genuses. Why didn't you just maybe put "genus" also, into my edit, instead of summarily removing the whole thing?? Edits should not be removed willy nilly. There has to be VERY good reasons for simply removing another person's honest input and work. Because then that's disrespectful. Tell me. Why exactly did you remove that edit that I put?

Do you know how many people have asked "are mountain lions really lions?" Why did you rudely remove that clarification that I put in? It was NOT "wrong". If you look under "lion" in Wikipedia, and if you look under "cougar", they are listed under different species as WELL as under different genuses. The species for cougar is "P. concolor", and the species for lion is "P. leo". So what? So how is what I said "wrong"?? The point is that cougars are technically not lions, and it would be good for a wikipedia article on cougars to simply state that fact and clarification. Why remove it? What exactly is the problem here? Sweetpoet (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

hi....I just had read what you wrote on my talk page, and thanks for responding,....and this was my response back:

Fair enough, but then instead of just removing the whole thing, why didn't you just change what I wrote to "different genuses" then? (As far as my "tone", to be honest you seemed to have a "tone" in your edit reason where you removed my whole edit.     And you seemed annoyed, so I was just wondering why the seeming attitude.)     I disagree though that it "adds nothing" to the article.

This is something that has come up sometimes, and why shouldn't the wikipedia article make the matter clear? It adds some CLARIFICATION in this specific point (that does come up sometimes)....and that's NOT "nothing". But yeah, why couldn't you have altered what I wrote instead of removing the whole thing? You do NOT own this article. No one person does. And total removals should be done very sparingly and with VERY good reason. Such as, you know, out-and-out "vandalism", and maybe totally irrelevant words.

This "cougars are not lions" thing IS relevant, and is a question that arises. That's what I'm kind of curious about. Because my over-arching point (which IS true) is that cougars are technically not "lions", and some people have asked about that. So couldn't you maybe just modify what I wrote, instead of completely removing it? Sweetpoet (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism (sic) Warning
Please refrain from making unconstructive changes to Wikipedia, as you did to Tareyton. Your changes appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you wish to engage in a power trip, please use the sandbox rather than disrupting work you don't understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.194.195 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)