User talk:Andyman1125/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Progressive rock

Hi Andyman. The Musical characteristics material in the Progressive rock article appears on two websites. At first I thought the Wikipedia material was a Copyvio, then I realised that both websites had taken the material from Wikipedia (and both acknowledge this on their web pages). We cannot use mirror websites as reliable sources, so I have once again removed the material. It appears that the Musical characteristics material has been in the article for some years and has been worked on by various editors. It is likely that much of what is said has appeared in reliable sources. It just needs putting together with a bit of care and research. There are some books available - [1] - though a number of those need to be examined carefully to make sure the author and/or publisher are reliable, as this appears to be an area where self-publishing is common.SilkTork*^YES! 02:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

in medias res

(First up, cool ref Floyd in your "talk" option)

Star Wars is used as an example in in medias res and it really doesn't fit. Star Wars doesn't start in the middle an flash back. It's a series with prequels. And there is some contention as to whether the Lucas actually ever planned the prequels originally (he claims it, but there is some evidence that disagrees). The citation would work to support the use of "in medias res" in a Star Wars article, but I don't think it is strong enough to prove that Star Wars is a enough good example. There are plenty of solid film examples of in medias res and Star Wars is a very weak one if it is one at all. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(Thanks, I thought it was pretty creative =P)

But back to the article...

You do have a good point where Star Wars isn't the perfect example of in media res as, say, The Odyssey, but in all technicality Star Wars does begin "in the middle of things." And I highly doubt Lucas never planned on releasing Episodes I-III, or else he wouldn't have started on IV! So I think the example in the article is good only to give people an example of a more modern in media res story. Thanks for your input, --Andy^{Speak to Me (Breathe)}_Contribs 03:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's an example - at all - but I also know enough that definition can be argued endlessly. There are plenty of examples of modern in medias res that are a lot less arguable. Skyline is one. A bad one. But there are many, many others.203.35.82.133 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages.Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to onlya small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.Dabomb87 (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes (band)

Can you explain this?. It looks like you have given that article Good Article status by yourself. It doesn't appear to have been nominated for GA, and clearly does not meet GA criteria. Unless you are able to provide a good rationale for your actions it might be better to revoke your Reviewer status until you are more familiar with Wikipedia's processes.SilkTork*^YES! 23:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that was almost two months ago, either I wasn't thinking or, like I said, it was two months ago and and I didn't know every in and out of Wikipedia yet, which I've learned. I think revoking my reviewer rights, which I only gained a few hours ago, would be a little extreme, don't you think? I see you've already rolled it back, so trying to argue for it would be futile. Sorry, I must have messed up.--Andy^{Speak to Me (Breathe)}_Contribs 02:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Shane Jacobson - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Jacobson

Hey Andy, My name is Deb Fryers. I am Shane Jacobson's Manager and Personal Publicist. We have been trying to correct information on Wikipedia that is currently wrong. We edited it and then it reverted back to information that is correct. How do we make a change that stays.. For example - Shane did not grow up in Bonny Doon. This is incorrect... How can we correct this information without it reverting back to wrong information ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debfryers (talk •contribs) 23:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm sure the information is correct and I have no reason to doubt you're his publicist. The only thing is when I patrol for vandalism I usually revert edits that replace large amounts of the article with new material. The best way to keep your content is to reference it. As of right now, the article doesn't have very many references. If you re-edit the article to what is true (which is perfectly fine) make sure you put a good edit summary and reference everything you write (within reason, of course). If you need help with referencing, see Wikipedia:REF for help. Thanks!--Andy^{Speak to Me (Breathe)}_Contribs 06:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do thanks Andy cheers deb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debfryers (talk • contribs) 04:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Eight-string guitarists

If you plan to create a new category, please take more care to ensure that it doesn't already exist under a slightly different name. Category:Eight-string guitarists has been in existence since April 2007. —Paul A (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's odd, because I did search for it.... well thanks anyway! --Andy^{Speak to Me (Breathe)}_Contribs 01:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3