This is an archive of past discussions about User:DocKino. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think the Damned should have been listed as one of the forerunners of punk along with The Sex Pistols and The Clash since they formed around the same time and had the first punk single and LP to be released in the UK and were the first UK punk band to tour the US
Neutrality of Sound Films
Hello Kal! Please call me Mike. In response to your reverting my edits, I have specified at least three instances where a speculative, or opinionary comment was present in the article. It seems as if we have a conflict here, and I would prefer to discuss it, and possibly rather than start an edit war. The Dietrich comments on the image are entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia, and the mention of Jolson's popularity could perhaps use some re-wording.
Would you be able to weigh in here please? The image in question is a rather unimaginative morph of Raj Thackeray and Hitler. It is being used in the article ostensibly because it aids readers' understanding of the situation. I disagree and I cited NFCC 8 when I tagged it. I now note that there is a simmering dispute about NFCC 8 itself though the main import of both wordings remains the same. I noticed you in the recent edit history of NFCC and thought that you would like to weigh in here. Thanks. Sarvagnya21:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
conservative/liberal/moderate
The problem I have with the statement in the United States article is that it is misleading. Yes more people identify as conservative than liberal, but there are so many moderates that lean liberal that if you were to just ask "are you conservative or liberal" , I think most people would say liberal. So if that is the case, someone reading this article could be mislead into thinking that the country is conservative as a whole, and I think if you look at this past election , this is clearly not true.
Kate Winslet
Thanks for your efforts in cleaning up the awards section of the article. It's great. I've had all I could handle just preventing it from becoming even more than a mess. Kudos. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Well Its because they are both the Central City, Riverside may be larger, But San Bernardino is more important, so they sould both be named. Or why not just write in Inland Empire instead of Riverside that way thy will both take credit? (the Inland Empire (CA) is the name of the metro) House1090 (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey its me again, but there is a bit controbersy going on about the Inland Empire in the Greather Los Angeles discussion page, please take a look and write your comments on the issue by clicking here, Thank-You and itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments likethese help no one. Like everyone else on the project, I'm a volunteer trying to make a positive impact on the place, and like everyone else on this project (including you), I'm not perfect. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»05:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ralph Bakshi
The article has been extensively researched. It's as complete and factually accurate as it could ever get. The "films" you mention are actually episodes of a television series, The Mighty Heroes. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC))
It's not strictly true to say that I copyedited this article; I simply fixed a few obvious MoS problems and listed a few examples of other things that needed to be done on the FAC review page. I thought that I'd also made my opinion clear at the FAC that the article was in need of a thorough copyedit. --MalleusFatuorum19:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
You need to do better than to request specific changes and then refuse to cooperate to implement these changes. Every effort has been made to improve the article, and the text was well-above standard, but you never bothered to review the latest revision of the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC))
Two copyeditors saw no problems with the article. I probably would have more eager to help implement the changes you requested sooner if you weren't as rude and uncooperative as you were. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
The statement about the film's reception is backed up by the cited source, which says that the reviews were largely positive. I added another source backing up the film's positive critical reception. Also, Barrier's overview of the making of Fritz the Cat is cited in the discussion of Bakshi replacing Shamus Culhane twice. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC))
Holding Spot
Jungian reflections within the cinema: a psychological analysis of sci-fi and fantasy archetypes
by James F. Iaccino
Space and beyond: the frontier theme in science fiction
by Gary Westfahl
Star trek and sacred ground: explorations of Star trek, religion, and American culture
by Jennifer E. Porter, Darcee L. McLaren
Religions of Star Trek - Page 4
by Ross Shepard Kraemer, William Cassidy, Susan L. Schwartz
Matters of gravity: special effects and supermen in the 20th century
By Scott Bukatman
Adaptations: from text to screen, screen to text
By Deborah Cartmell, Imelda Whelehan
House FAc
Hi, I don't know if you keep FAcs on your watchlist (in which case this message would be redundant), but I have replied to your comments on the House FAc. It would be great if you could take another look. Thanks.--Music26/1113:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, I don't mean to bother you, but it has been quite around the House FAc and I have adressed all of your comments. It would be great if you could reply. Thanks.--Music26/1110:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was about to send you a message about how I was in a position where I couldn't do anything about the image because there were users opposing to the images as well as supporting the image. However, as I read the page I realized that there were only two users really against the image, Fasach Nua and Bignole. Further discussion regarding the image takes place on the FAc page.--Music26/1112:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll problably renominate it today or tomorrow, there's no waiting period right? One question though, did you merge the spin-off section with the recurring characters section? If so, why? That's it, have nice day.--Music26/1112:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
My bad, I just noticed your talk page comments, I'll see what I can do about the critical reception.--Music26/1113:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Added some info; I'm planning to add some more regarding reception of seperate seasons, but you can take a look at how it looks so far. Later.--Music26/1120:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your thorough work in FAC. Are you new to the area? I don't recall seeing you around until a month or so ago. At any rate, welcome. We always need substantive and conscientious reviews. --Laser brain(talk)17:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi; I'll echo the comments, and not just because of your kind words and invaluable input at Changeling's FAC (I forgot thank you, btw); we can never have too many good reviewers who are willing to spend time thoroughly and calmly engaging with nominators, especially those who feel slighted by a well-considered oppose. I hope you'll stick around. All the best, SteveT • C22:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that you've been reviewing nominations at Featured article candidates. Thank you for your help, and I hope you will continue to contribute! You may already be familiar with the FAC criteria by now, but in case you aren't, you can check out the Featured article criteria. Also, the following dispatches are useful for reviewing nominations:
The best way to learn is by doing, but here is a quick reference of the things to check for each nomination you review:
Quick reference
A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
It is:
well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
Thanks for the message, and yes, I do intend to renominate it as soon as I finish the Themes section. I've ordered some books that I think/hope will contribute to it, and I want to take one more look at the library for any good print sources I could use for the article. I've also responded to both of your comments on the talk page. Thanks! — HunterKahn(contribs)22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Jackie Robinson FAC
I'll take another look at the images tomorrow, but I'm more of a prose/MoS reviewer than an image expert. Therefore, I asked User:Jappalang if he could take a look at it. Will do the best I can, though. Please keep up your great work in these reviews. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Cal! I am writing is to let you know that there will be no moreUnited States edits from me!!
Thanks for reverting my inappropriate rubbish, comrade. No sarcasm intended here. I will now try to find something else to do. Have you any positive suggestions? B. Fairbairn Talk 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure TV.com (as well as IMDb) is strongly discouraged as a reliable source since it allows users to submit information to the website (much like Wikipedia does). I'm pretty sure during featured article reviews references from those two sites are weeded out. So it's probably best to find a different reference for the new information you added. It's probably accurate information but I think a different reference needs to be found for it. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
June 2009
First of all, as you were giving me the 3RR warning, you reverted me for the 3rd time today, thus bringing yourself to the verge of violating it as well. I have already listed my explanation as for the grammatical correctness (or the lack thereof) of DCGeist's addition: the word combination what one scholar calls this is garbled and though not entirely incorrect, such phrases are better reworded for Wikipedia's aesthetic quality. Moreover, as I have been telling DCGeist from the beginning, this addition puts the unduly weight on the fact that one scholar and one scholar alone said these words, hence inadvertently promoting a non-wp:neutral, skeptical outlook on the subject matter of the quote by using wp:weasel words. Is there a good reason for you to insist on that version, other than siding with DCGeist? Did they email you asking for help? (By the way, this is one of the reasons I don't have an account.) After all, we are all here to improve articles with positive, good-faith contributions. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I have explained in detail why my edit is grammatically better, while you have been simply reiterating your statement. I am not here to get into these edit war games, nor do I want to summon other editors to help me in these childish ordeals. We all have better things to do – still, I would like to receive an explanation as for why you keep insisting that DCGeist's version is more correct. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It's becoming more and more clear that I was absolutely wrong in our disagreement on the House (TV series) page. Please accept my apologies for both my misunderstanding of policy (regarding WP:RS), and regarding the actual facts of the matter. Unitanode22:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Metrication in the United States
A disgusting comment has been placed on the Metrication in the United States talk page. Can you remove it?
There are two principal reasons why the United States of North America has been unable to change to a sensible measurement system that 200 / 203 countries use.
1. The financial cost of such a change would probably cripple a weakening economy.
2. The average American lacks the intellect necessary to be able to handle such a change.
I just reviewed this ANI entry and the article, and I have to say that I agree with Chiliad that the article reads like an essay.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, you've performed three reverts on this article today: a fourth one will result in an edit-warring block. Please bear in mind that it doesn't have to be the same reverted content to count towards the total. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point. I forgot the Vice President counted as leader of the Senate, so I didn't quite see the parallel there before. Sorry about that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Fritz the Cat
Two sources print this figure, not just Variety. If you had actually looked at the article or looked at the edits before commenting, something you have never done (as evidenced by the fact that you originally wrote that you doubted that the article had been improved, and then removed the comment after seeing how much text was in the article), you would have noticed that your implication that Steve copyedited the text, and I reverted his edits, was entirely untrue - I even applied those edits about the gross to other articles - but I changed it after further research proved that I was right in the first place. By the way, one of the sources that added in that copyedit you refer to, Planet Cat, was clearly sourced from Wikipedia, right around 2005, and God knows where that figure came from (IMDb?). You want I should add information that is clearly incorrect back into the article? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC))
What currently appears in the article you continue to trash is factually accurate and verified. This article should be featured by now. Your comments are unhelpful and disruptive. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC))
Rollback
Hi, I noticed you used rollback to undo this edit by User:Coolgrl1234. The edit seems to be a good-faith edit by a new user, so a personal note on the user's talk page, along with an explanatory edit summary during your reversion, would probably be less bitey than using rollback, which is intended for obvious vandalism. The fact that most of this editor's contributions seem to be constructive and all could be construed as good-faith makes this reversion using rollback even less appropriate. An explanatory edit summary and a personal note on the user's talk page would be much better. Thanks. TheSeeker 4Talk19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Jeff G., with whom I have no history prior to nine days ago (unless he has previously or otherwise operated under a different username), began his campaign of harassment against me with this July 30 edit: [2]. As you can see, this "last warning" tag Mr. G placed on my Talk page was unexplained, unreferenced, and not preceded by lower-level tags. The campaign resumed this evening with this edit: [3]. Mr. G's notice here appears to be unexceptional, but the context shows that it is not. The article in question is Pulp Fiction (film). I have a long history of productive contributions to the article; Mr. G has none. I was reverting a minutes-old, small, objectively erroneous edit by an anon. Indeed I did not provide a detailed edit summary--perfectly standard practice for reverting a minor anon edit, hardly meriting a warning on my Talk page from an entirely uninvolved editor (unless, of course, that editor is watching my actions, looking for an excuse to harass me). I reverted the addition to my Talk page, referring in edit summary to the action I was reverting as "vandalism"--which, given the circumstances and recent history, is exactly what it appeared to be to me. Mr. G then began a spree of warnings on my Talk page accusing me of "personal attacks" ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), which I reverted--ultimately using intemperate language, indeed, but only in the summaries for edits to my own Talk page. Beginning only after Mr. G had tagged my Talk page for the third time this evening, I also left two warnings against defamation on Mr. G's Talk page, which again seemed entirely appropriate given the circumstances. They were simple template warnings, with no additional language, let alone anything inappropriate. I cannot fathom why Mr. G has chosen to target me, but I respectfully suggest that I should be unblocked and that Mr. G should be warned against initiating contact with me in the future.
Decline reason:
Your edit summaries refer to the other editor as a "serial troll" and "mentally disturbed." Sorry, but you are going to have to sit out the block. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Please be reasonable as far as the U.S. article when you return from the block.
NZ is NOT Australia even though Americans think the two are similar. The NZ and American governments are at odds (though not to the point of hostility). South Korea is considered a much closer political ally even if the people may be culturally different from many Americans. Also, George Washington did not work or live in the White House so saying all Presidents did is wrong information that may lower a child's grade if they are writing a paper based on WP.
In The Animated Movie Guide, Jerry Beck states that Wizards and American Pop were successful while discussing Hey Good Lookin'. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC))
The FAC has been closed as not promoted. Suggest that you (Ibranoff) work with Steve and DocKino to address the issues brought up at the FAC before re-submitting. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
If I didn't know Fuchs was deadly serious I'd almost think he is intentionally parodying a bad Wikipedia editor. I think you'll find my latest Talk comment quite amusing. Also, let me point out two of his previous appearances in WP:ANI, in early 2008 and early August 2009 (right after the initial contretemps regarding my ST:TMP edits, actually). Sound familiar? YLee (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Ramones
Hi,
Let me begin by pointing out that I fully recognize and admire your immense contributions to the content of Ramones and that my extremely minor role completely pales to insignificance by comparison. Someone had incompletely nominated the article for WP:GA and seeing what a "small g" good article it is I thought it would be a shame to go unassessed. I had and have do desire to overstep my place in the articles history or development. If you want to address the review please do, if you would prefer discussing any changes—I can do that, or if you believe the article is fine as is and don't care if it is assessed then I'll walk away. I hate to not finish something that I've started but I'm not going to work on a futile cause either. Whatever you decide is fine by me, just let me know. J04n(talk page)15:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious. You removed the RS top ranking entry you had just added with an edit summary, "Sorry, per lead, give RS ranking just for those in top ten." WP:LEAD doesn't say anything about that, and how does WP:LEAD apply anyway? Your edit was not to a lead paragraph. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I understand now. Obviously, I understood your "per lead" to mean "per WP:Lead". I agree that we don't need to mention the RS position for all their albums in the main article. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
ECs on The Beatles
Per the FAC review, I'm trying to cleanup the citations. It's maddening to try and do that while you are also editing. (Given you are an FAC reviewer, aren't you not supposed to be editing anyway? I don't really know those rules.) Can you lay off for awhile, or should I? I'd like to get this done, but the article gets almost constant editing and systematic changes to citations are much harder under those conditions. — John Cardinal (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
In two edits on Talk:The Beatles ([9], [10]) you described me as incoherent, ignorant, and lazy, among other things. I am formally requesting that you retract those comments and strike them on the talk page. I don't appreciate being insulted and it's not appropriate for those uncivil remarks to stand, especially on the talk page for an article that I have invested many hours to help improve. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Did you see my reply to your post on my talk page? I try to keep discussions in one place and so I replied there rather than here. The summary:
I would still like you to retract/strike-out the comments on Talk:The Beatles.
If you are not going to retract your comment, please say so. Given it's been more than a day since I made my request, I suspect I have your answer. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for striking the comments on The Beatles talk page. I trust you have seen that PL290 provided his point of view on our dispute. He interpreted my initial edit conflict message similar to the way you did, and given that, it's clear I need to try harder to avoid making comments that can be interpreted as criticism. I sincerely hope that we can work productively together in the future without those interactions being tainted by this episode. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Award
The Reviewer's Barnstar
For your phenomenal input to The Beatles at FAC, your exhaustive efforts to improve the article's coverage and accuracy before the review ended, backed up by countless hands-on fixes, your skilful diplomacy during the review, and your willingness to work collaboratively with other editors to resolve issues afterwards. Thank you! PL290 (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Recent comments
The latest edits show that Unfiltered isn't the only source being used. Several citations were added backing up information which is also stated in Unfiltered. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC))
What are you talking about? I did address all concerns. Are you intentionally trying to avoid admitting that you were wrong in sabotaging every FAC nomination this article has had thus far for your own petty, unprovoked bias against me? This article should be featured. It exactly meets the standards. It's perfect. Support it. Strike your opposition. Now. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC))
I was surprised to see "independent.co.uk" as the publisher name. I assumed that "independent.co.uk" was their Internet domain, but the actual publisher name would be different. I went to the site and saw that my assumption was wrong, but the page had the first "I" capitalized. I changed The Beatles to reflect what I found.
In general, I think the name should match the way the publisher shows it on their site when rendering it in text, i.e., if there is a stylized graphic with different fonts and colors, etc., I'll ignore that if there is also a simple(r) text version. The text version is often available in the page footer, on an "about us" page, or on a legal info page.
I didn't check "guardian.co.uk" before now, but it appears the domain is "guardian.co.uk", and they use that as a name on the site, but the publisher's name seems to be "Guardian News and Media Limited". Without doing a lot of research, the "work" (equivalent to the newspaper name) would be "guardian.co.uk" and the publisher would be "Guardian News and Media". Having said all that, I'm no expert on this stuff... — John Cardinal (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Canada-United States Relations link
Thank you for pointing out that the link already existed in the same paragraph. My apologies for missing that, and I commend your ability to see and correct the egregious oversight that I made. Thank you for your assistance, and happy editing! Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi DocKino, it's Hunter Kahn. I don't know if you remember me, but you provided some feedback during my old FAC nomination for the Tender Mercies film entry. If you'll recall, the issues back then were a lack of a comprehensive "Themes" section and scholarly sources. I think your those issues are now resolved; I would have nominated it again long ago, but I got bogged down with some real-life matters, as well as the fact that it took me a particularly long time to track down one particular journal article I wanted. That being said, I think Tender Mercies is ready now and I've once again nominated it for FAC. I remember back in the previous nomination, you seemed to indicate you felt Tender Mercies was already very close to FA standards. Now that I've renominated it, I'm very much hoping you'll weigh in on the new FAC page. Thanks! — HunterKahn(c)01:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Being true to the sources can be more important than consistency of presentation.
Hello DocKino, Consistency is good, but often it is more important to be true to the sources. That's why I undid your edit to the article on the United States.
When the CIA and the United Nations quote the area of the United States in square kilometres, the fact that they use the metric system is as notable as the fact that their figures do not agree. It is especially notable that the CIA, an American Government instrumentality, uses the metric system. In this case, converting these figures into square miles misrepresents the sources, just as it would misrepresent the sources to change the measures so that they agree with each other. Michael Glass (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
File source problem with File:WB 77-Sid Vicious promo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:WB 77-Sid Vicious promo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Tender Mercies question
Hey, I saw your latest query at the Tender Mercies FAC. I am at work right now, but will address it when I get home. In the meantime, I had a question for you. As you probably saw, I added the audio clip of Duvall singing. Since actress Betty Buckley also did her own singing (and since her song "Over You" was nominated for an Oscar), do you think it would be worthwhile to include a brief audio clip of her singing "Over You" along with the Duvall clip? Or do you think having two would be a fair-use issue? Since it's two separate actors, and since the fact that both sand their own songs are addressed in the article, I thought it would be OK, but wanted your opinion before I added the clip... — HunterKahn(c)19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm really happy with how the audio clips have come out in this article. I've never done this in a Wikipedia article before, so thanks for all your guidance with them. And yeah, I agree with you about "Over You". lol — HunterKahn(c)02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thought I'd seek your opinion on something. When going through the DVD documentary thing to check a quote, I noticed that it included still (black and white) photos of Duvall and Foote accepting Oscars. I was wondering if you thought a screengrab of the Foote Oscar photo would be a good addition and would work as a fair use rationale. Let me know what you think... — HunterKahn(c)04:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For a thorough, rigorous copy edit on Tender Mercies, which was crucial in getting the article to FA and made an unquestionably positive impact on the entry. Your help with image and audio fair use rationales was also highly appreciated. My sincere thanks! — HunterKahn(c)05:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Feedback request
I'd value your opinion about something. As you have a lot of experience as a FAC reviewer, and I've only managed to find time to review a handful of FACs so far, I think you are in a good position to judge the way I've handled my oppose at WP:Featured article candidates/Merry Xmas Everybody/archive1. This is not an attempt to solicit input to that FAC per se, just a request for feedback on how you think I've handled it, to help my personal development and effectiveness in future FACs. I don't like to oppose, and in fact this is the first time I've done so; I'm (perhaps needlessly) left questioning whether I've come down too hard on the nominator, and whether I need (heaven forbid) more practice at opposing, to develop greater diplomacy in interpreting and responding to nominators' comments. One of my objections (now stricken) concerned the suitability of a source and consequent assertions made in the article; after a counter-challenge, my objection was accepted and fixed, but my other objections continue to be challenged and the discussion seems to me to have deteriorated. As things stand, I doubt the value of making any further response, as side-issues appear to be dominating and risk clouding the principles of my stated objections. If it's possible for you to take a look and let me know, honestly, how you think I've handled it (and, if you want, any other FAC you're aware of that I've contributed to), I'd be very grateful. Note that in the FAC in question I've also joined in the discussion of at least one other reviewer's response (which I did after my oppose). If you'd prefer not to do this for any reason, no problem, just say no. Thanks! PL290 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Ditto to that! Many thanks for your work, which has vastly improved the article. Same goes to Malleus Fatuorum! Thank you for helping me get the page to what it is now. Though it looks like the FAC will be unsuccessful, I'll try to work on it as best as I can over the next few weeks, then perhaps I'll renominate it. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Penguin dictionary/British English
So if it's not true that British English demands "-ise" for certain words like maximize (in American English), is that why the Cambridge dictionary says "UK usually ___ise" for the words in question that I changed on The Beatles article? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The Beatles and UK-English variant
The Oxford English Dictionary includes a lot of variant spellings, but generally British English utilises the "s" rather than the "z". Moreso, the MoS denotes that subjects peculiarly or generally related to one of the English speaking cultures should use the typical word and grammatical structures of that language. I would suggest that you self revert, since Brits can generally be trusted to know how things are commonly spelled in their native language. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... I got a General Certificate of EducationO Level in English language back in 1976, and have been speaking the lingo since the early 60's and writing in it for my living since 1978. Of course, I could read a book which says that I may spell words with a "z" and I can also read books which detail peoples real life stories on how they were abducted by aliens. Or. Just because it says you can do "x" (or "z" in this matter) does not mean you must. Another point - giving out advice; it is what admins and other experienced editors do. It is supposed to be how Wikipedia works. Of course, if you want me to comply with the stereotype of WP admins I could just block you for your rudeness at my talkpage. As ever, I like to give the other party the choice... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Just got back home and had a look at the Presley article. You have no idea how pleased I was to view your recent contributions to this article. Hope the two of you will stick around for awhile.--Jaye9 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
000 dead
If you really do not believe reports on the loss of civilian life, then you are either perfect example of stupidity or naivete associated with a stupid patriotism and fanaticism --Fredy.00 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
What right have you give me an ultimatum? I have the right to write true infromace about this country.
Why is it on wikipedia sponsored censorship and manipulation of the facts?
And then you still have the audacity to threaten someone who writes true, but unfortunately "politically embarrassing" information. --Fredy.00 (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
You just plain fanatics, stupid stupid herd member, a victim of "brainwashing"
Why is this creature not blocked yet, DocKino?! I watch pages and rarely comment, but this is ridiculous! Block this moron, already!!! Doc9871 (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Elvis Presley
It seems as if we have a content dispute. I will leave it for now, but I do not agree with some of your recent edits. In my opinion, well-sourced contributions by other users should not be deleted. Onefortyone (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Stop!
Please do not leave nonsense on my page about reverts. I know your a huge Elvis fan but dont be hypocritcal when you edited just as much as me. Should I post the same thing on your page? I have right to edit just like you regardless of how long you have been editing. A Star Is Here (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
You can continue to post as you like on page as well just remember I have left a comment on the talk page you havent. Just remember your step away from being blocked. So before you come with your nonsense to my page see my explantation on the Elvis talk page. A Star Is Here (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the "Photo-Drama of Creation" on the "Sound Films" Page...
I am assuming that by your statement of the paragraph being "completely unsourced", you mean that I have no references. Very well; I will give the needed references.
This message is from 96.250.154.201. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.154.201 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Doc... hope you've had a better weekend than I have here at WP! (Trouble-trouble for me!) Listen, if you haven't noticed already, at the bottom of both The Beatles and Elvis Presley pages, you will see that the categories box comes into conflict with the template and external links. This is the same for many other articles, too. I've notified WP's two developers, but have not received any word back. I presume this originated in early/mid-December when the article parameters for Wikipedia were changed. Also, might you check out my work on Elvis' singles template sometime. Talk to you sometime again. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It could be, you know I never gave that any thought. I use Microsoft Internet Explorer 7, at least I think that's what it's called. Hmmm... Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you raised comments about the quality of the prose on Brad Pitt in its FAC in June last year. I've recently undertaken a copyedit, at the request of ThinkBlue, the nominator, and I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look and provide a little feedback- I wouldn't be surprised if I'd missed something, so any examples of prose needing improvement or general constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time, HJMitchellYou rang? 22:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Kate Winslet
Thanks for fixing the awards section. I tried to find where the youngest for 2 nominations had been removed before after the GAN reviewer added but couldn't. I put the progression of awards from fewer noms to 6 noms. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a question, DocKino
More than once, you have deleted an accurate quote from a reputable British film magazine. As the editorial article of 1959 shows, Elvis’s “aggressively bisexual” appearance in his films was noticed long before his death. Your version of the paragraph suggests that only recent “gender studies” are of the opinion that his persona was sexually ambiguous. I hope you see the problem. By the way, there are additional sources dealing with the topic. For instance, art historian Richard Meyer has noted the homoerotic content of Warhol's picture, “Triple Elvis” of 1964. Onefortyone (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the correct author's name. In general, you are doing a very good job on Elvis Presley, and I like the accurateness of your contributions. However, in some cases, you have removed nice quotes that could have enlivened the article. Onefortyone (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Promo stills
DocKino, would this site be safe to use for PD/No copyright notice Promo Stills? The photos of the Grateful Dead, Who, and Rolling Stones could prove useful in their respective articles. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a question
Are you aware that, in some cases, your attitude towards historical facts and well-sourced contributions by other users is somewhat questionable, DocKino? Not to mention your rather condescending behavior towards me because I have a more critical view than other Wikipedians. (I do not think that this is fully in line with Wikipedia policies.) However, in general, I am very satisfied with your edits, as they actually contribute to the improvement of the Elvis article. Onefortyone (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, DocKino, but I'd like to share with you my thoughts about the future of The Kinks. I am most likely not going to re-nominate the article for GA, as it would be too long of a wait, and nothing "good" so far has come from it. I will work on the article some more, and eventually nominate it for a peer review. If everything proves satisfactory there, and you believe it to be ready, I'll post it for FAC. I will also check with Malleus Fatuorum, as he was also very active in the last FA review of the article. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It's time ... would one of the copyediting and reviewing kings like to be the King nominator? I believe the circumstances mean both that it's going to be fun, and that no other path than FAC is viable. I'm more than happy to take it on if that's what you'd prefer. PL290 (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm Counting on You
Your well of diplomacy runs deeper than mine--a virtue that will surely be tested during this effort. (Over/under on initial demand for a "Critical voices" section: 26 hours.)
Go for it. You can reference me as conominator, and I'll troubleshoot while offering only excruciatingly restrained commentary. It's been fun so far, mate. With any luck... DocKino (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
PL290 has bought you a pint!
Italian wine is good, but right now, the beer is on me. Cheers!
Do you really have nothing better to do? If you genuinely have an issue with my conduct or my interpretation of policy, contact me, I'm always open to advice and both of us could benefit from any ensuing discussion. If you have advice for the poster (and please note what they are asking) then post it in the thread. Posting these ridulous snide comments really isn't helping anyone. J Milburn (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Kinks PR and Image Query
It's now up and running. While I'm here, I also have a question. I have in my possession an advertisement, printed by Warner Bros./Reprise Records, advertising their double-album label-wide sampler, The Big Ball. The advertisement includes multiple photos of artists on Warner/Reprise, including The Kinks. I've made a high-quality scan of the ad—you can find it on Photobuckethere. There are absolutely no copyright notices anywhere on the advertisement (the reverse is blank). What do you think? I'll make another high-quality scan of the Kinks image, if you like. Many thanks, - I.M.S. (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Life's rich tapestry
Well. Only 10 days in, with two supports already, plus two very-close-to-supports, and two looks-good-likely-to-support-in-due-courses (taking the 2 to potentially 6 without even counting others likely to weigh in and support at any moment), versus one entirely predictable oppose--and outstanding issues currently amounting to tidying up a few Elvis Australia sources--we really weren't expecting that ... PL290 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Still, it doesn't really change anything. Per Sandy's closing edit comment, let's get it back up as soon as we've fixed the unaddressed issues. We owe it to the reviewers not to delay that. PL290 (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Done for now...
I'm going a little cross-eyed on the Elvis ref work so I am going to call it a night. If you spot any ref errors, feel free to fix them, of course, but if it's not clear what's going on you can throw them in my lap. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Kate Winslet and youngest to receive two noms
Just saying that after you removed the statement from the article, the good article reviewer put it back in with a source that I thought was sketchy. It was again removed and he insisted it be returned. I emailed him that Sal Mineo beat that record so he insisted that it be documented. I couldn't remember who else had been mentioned about this so I looked at Audrey Hepburn. The reason it was included at all was because the reviewer insisted upon it. I'm glad that it has been resolved. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw your Elvis Presley edit where you sequenced unauthored references by ref name. Previously, they were by the article title. I am pretty sure the rule for the Harvard style is to order by article title and that's why I sort them that way. I see your point, however, that finding the item by the same text as used in the short reference is easier when going from the short footnote full reference. (I wonder why the Harvard syle specifies it otherwise?) Savvy readers will know they can click the short icon link to scroll to and highlight the appropriate reference, and that's the easiest way no matter what the sequence is. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't find the source I read when trying to determine what the sequence should be. I reviewed the guide at the URL you provided, and I saw this:
A reference list is arranged alphabetically by author. If an item has no author, it is cited by title, and included in the alphabetical list using the first significant word of the title.
I looked further and saw the Web page with corporate or organisational author section, and that included an example where the organization was specified as the author. (Note that "University of Queensland Library" appeared twice.) That indicates to me that they don't recommend sorting the reference list by the web site name, but rather that they recommend using the web site name as the author, and then sticking to the "sort by author" rule. The hard part there is deciding when to use the organizational name as the author. I doubt that should apply to all websites.
For the time being, I am going to keep my script as is; editors can adjust the reference by specifying the web site as both |work= and |author=, and then sort by author (as done now) to get the same output as shown in the guide. If you do any more research and find something useful, please send the links along. Thanks. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, DocKino. You have new messages at I.M.S.'s talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
"[It was] one of the happiest times of my life. I had my friends; I used to play football on a Sunday; life was music and writing, touring with the band."
Ray Davies, on the months around the time of "Waterloo Sunset"[1]
"We spent a lot of time trying to get a different guitar sound, to get a more unique feel for the record. In the end we used a tape-delay echo, but it sounded new because nobody had done it since the 1950s. I remember Steve Marriott of the Small Faces came up and asked me how we'd got that sound. We were almost trendy for a while."
Dave Davies
What do you think of the "There were only a few bands that had this sorta really rough-sounding" quote box at The Kinks? I really think it serves no purpose, and adds very little. Here's a quote that I think works better; it illustrates Ray's feelings towards the outside world during the "Waterloo Sunset" period:
"[The months around 'Waterloo Sunset' was] one of the happiest times of my life. I had my friends; I used to play football on a Sunday; life was music and writing, touring with the band."
As you can see, I've made an example box at right. Here's another quote, to be included with the main text (it would also work great in the sample caption), for your consideration:
"We spent a lot of time trying to get a different guitar sound, to get a more unique feel for the record. In the end we used a tape-delay echo, but it sounded new because nobody had done it since the 1950s. I remember Steve Marriott of the Small Faces came up and asked me how we'd got that sound. We were almost trendy for a while."—Dave Davies, quoted in Savage (1984), p. 87.
DocKino, you do amazing work over at FAC, and your copyediting has proved invaluable to the articles you've worked on. You've always guided, helped, and defended me here on Wikipedia; now, over at The Kinks, you've prevented an edit war, and saved me from filing an ANI report. For this I thank you; few Wikipedians I know are as deserving of this star as you. Again, thank you. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Elvis featured
If the taste of a pint sometimes depends on who's bought it for ya, then PL290's has gone down a treat! You guys really whipped things up, and my heartfelt thanks to you for doing so. Rikstar40910:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You may be a very good copyeditor, but you have more than once removed a well-sourced addition to the article on The Ed Sullivan Show, accusing me of a subjective, idiosyncratic view per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. To my mind, you are wrong, as the statement by Rodriguez adds, for reasons of balance, an aspect to the article not mentioned before and is therefore fully in line with Wikipedia policies. Furthermore, could you please explain to me what is so important about the following passages that are still part of the same article:
Laughton appeared in front of plaques with gold records and stated, "These gold records, four of them... are a tribute to the fact that four of his recordings have sold, each sold, more than a million copies. And this, by the way, is the first time in record making history that a singer has hit such a mark in such a short time. ...And now, away to Hollywood to meet Elvis Presley."[2]
Once on camera, Elvis cleared his throat and said, “Thank you, Mr Laughton, ladies and gentlemen. Wow”, and wiped his brow. “This is probably the greatest honor I’ve ever had in my life. Ah. There’s not much I can say except, it really makes you feel good. We want to thank you from the bottom of our heart. And now..." "Don't Be Cruel", which was, after a short introduction by Elvis, followed by "Love Me Tender".[2]
When the camera returned to Laughton, he stated, “Well, well, well well well. Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis Presley. And Mr. Presley, if you are watching this in Hollywood, and I may address myself to you. It has been many a year since any young performer has captured such a wide, and, as we heard tonight, devoted audience.”[2]
Elvis's second set in the show consisted of "Ready Teddy" and a short on-air comment to Sullivan, "Ah, Mr Sullivan. We know that somewhere out there you are looking in, and, ah, all the boys and myself, and everybody out here, are looking forward to seeing you back on television." Next, Elvis declared, "Friends, as a great philosopher once said, ‘You ain’t nothin’ but a Hound Dog...,' " as he launched into a short (1:07) version of the song.[2]
Sullivan then addressed the audience as he stood beside Elvis, who began shaking his legs, eliciting screams from the audience. By the time Sullivan turned his head, Elvis was standing motionless. After Presley left the stage, Sullivan stated, "I can’t figure this darn thing out. You know. He just does this and everybody yells." Elvis appeared a second time in the show and sang "Love Me". Later on, he sang a nearly four minute long version of "Hound Dog" and was shown in full the entire song.
Sullivan praised Elvis at the end of the show, saying "This is a real decent, fine boy. We've never had a pleasanter experience on our show with a big name than we've had with you.... You're thoroughly all right."[3]
The fact that you have left all these other unencyclopedic passages untouched shows your biased attitude in handling my contributions. Just for the record. There were good reasons to include this additional remark in the article,
However, according to Robert Rodriguez, "Elvis’s discomfort at the compliment is evident; he looked as though he’d just received a Judas kiss before being publicly neutered and declared to be safe as milk."[4]
for, some time ago, another user, Jaye9, cited Elvis himself saying,
So they arranged to put me on television. At that particular time there was a lot of controversy - you didn't see people moving out in public. They were gettin it on in the back rooms, but you didn't see it out in public too much. So there was a lot of controversy - and I went on the Ed Sullivan Show. They photographed me from the waist up. And Sullivan standing over there saying "Sumbitch". I said, "Thank you, Ed, thank you." I didn't know what he was calling me, at the time.
This shows that Rodriguez was certainly right with his opinion, and for reasons of balance, his statement should be included in the Sullivan article. Onefortyone (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, some months ago, while removing the same commentary from the Elvis article, you said that Rodriguez’ opinion about a fleeting facial expression is “a clever, intriguing, plausible observation.” See [11]. So would you please explain to me why this “clever, intriguing, plausible observation” should not be included in the article on the Ed Sullivan Show, especially in view of the fact that it demonstrates, for reasons of balance, that Sullivan’s words weren’t honest. If there is another source which shows that Sullivan’s words were indeed sincere, you may also add this opinion to the article. Onefortyone (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!
CopyEditor's BarnStar
I award you this CopyEditor's BarnStar for insisting on clear, comprehensible, and grammatically correct articles. I am happy to offer you another barnstar for yet another exhaustive, excellent copy edit. First Tender Mercies, and now Parks and Recreation (season 1). Whereas most of my feedback on that FAC was limited to little more than "the prose needs work" with no actionable advice, you single-handedly saved the nomination from failure and made great improvements to the article along the way. I can't express my appreciation enough; please let me know if I can ever return the favor!— HunterKahn14:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Question
Hey DocKino. So, I'm planning on nominating South Park (season 13) for FAC. I'm very active in the South Park featured topic drive and, much like Parks and Recreation, I've been following the thirteenth season of South Park all along, working on the episode articles and accumulating lots of sources and information. I think the article is currently well-sourced, comprehensive and fairly well written, and it's passed both a GA review and been peer reviewed. However, I'm sure like P&R prose issues will be raised at the FAC, and you have an immaculate track record when it comes to copy editing. I hate to be a bother, but I wonder if you'd consider giving it a once over before I nominate it? Let me know if you have the time or inclination. If not it's no big deal, but if you could, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks in advance! — HunterKahn04:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! I've gone ahead and nominated it for FA, so you can conduct the review whenever convenient for you. Sorry to be a pest before it even got nominated; I'm just paranoid after my last nearly FAC ran into problems. :D Your efforts are much appreciated! — HunterKahn16:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
So, sort of an unusual situation, but the FAC for the South Park (season 13) article was withdrawn, apparently because I indicated on the page that you intended to give it a look through. This was apparently taken as me acknowledging that the article was lacking, which wasn't really what I meant. In any event though, I guess I'll resubmit it after you're able to give it a CE. Let me know when you can do it, there's no rush. Thanks! — HunterKahn00:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Sex Pistols TFA
Just to say I think you have done an amazing job with this article, and here it is on main page! The level of vandelism is likely to be overwhealming, so I'd tool up if I was you. Ceoil (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've asked four editors here to consider changing the bolded parts of their comments in that RfC. As you are one of those editors, I'm notifying you here so you are aware of the request. If you are prepared to change the bolded comment to just "support" or "oppose", could you please refactor completely, rather than using strike-through. Any emphasis can be moved to the non-bolded part of the comment. To make clear what has happened, you can also re-sign your comment to include the date it was updated, I tend to use the following code: <small>Updated: ~~~~~</small>. The aim here is to reduce the rhetoric and inappropriate emphasis, and to refocus discussion on what needs doing here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Why are you reverting my photo placement on the Ramones article?
I would really like to get along; this is getting frustrating, though. I'm not just an editor here on Wikipedia, but also a photographer in my real life. For the past few years I've been uploading about 400 free images to Wikimedia Commons-- there's a small gallery and list of the majority of them. I've got several award-winning photos which, rather than signing a lucrative book deal instead have changed to Creative Commons licensing to use of Joey Ramone, Joey and Johnny Ramone, Dee Dee Ramone, and a couple of others. Aesthetically, the one of Johnny and Joey really should have their backs to a side margin. It's why I've moved the photo there twice. Take a look at my userpage; you'll get an idea of the photos I've uploaded and placed over the last few years on Wikipedia-I want us to be friends here! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, I've been doing this for four years. I suppose I'm OK with the photo in that position. I have noticed the Punk rock crowd seem very territorial about some of the articles. I'm wondering why some of the photos are duplicated on the band and individual pages of the Ramones. Check out the photos --no the list of names on my Userpage and recent uploads-- there are some really obscure ones that may belong in the Punk or New Wave part of the Punk rock portal. I don't see the need for the Ramones to repeat photos, though, on both the band page AND their individual articles. Also, in particular there's one of poorer quality on the band page with Dee Dee Ramone, I think.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Accidental revert?
Hello. In this edit, did you intend to remove the word "speculate" that I had recently added to the list of synonyms for "said" to avoid? (I had neglected to log in, thus I showed up as IP 96.21.115.153.) I assume it was an error, as your edit summary does not refer to the change, but I wanted to check with you before adding it back. Thanks. Blackworm (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: your response, to answer (1): my dictionary defines "speculate" as "to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence." Thus to me the problem with it seems more similar to "claim," specifically its use to cast undue doubt on a statement with which the editor disagrees, subtly injecting the editor's POV. As for (2), I'm not sure about "on numerous occasions," however I have seen one editor change a neutral wording of "said" to "speculated," apparently in furtherance of the editor's POV, which precipitated my interest in seeking consensus to have it explicitly mentioned on WP:AVOID. On the other hand I've never seen "surmise," "confess," and "expose," three words listed there. Blackworm (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I suppose you're right in that "surmised" has essentially the same meaning as "speculated." The text in WP:AVOID only discusses "claim" as casting undue doubt, when I would argue that "surmised" and "speculated" do so as well, unless that lack of evidence and low degree of confidence are specifically mentioned in the source. In any case, all these words are discussed in the same section; do you have an objection to the addition? Blackworm (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Sex Pistols. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. You've obviously done a lot of good work on the article - no need to be rude to another editor, even if they are wrong.Anaxial (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
3-revert warning
Please stop reverting other people's edits, as you are doing in Sex Pistols. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. --175.144.249.108 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Elvis_Presley_68_Comeback_Special.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Elvis_Presley_68_Comeback_Special.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
According to the Non-free content criteria policy, all images must have a license tag applied to the image's description page. The above linked image did not have one when I put the above warning on your page, and it still does not have one.--Rockfang (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Rory Gallagher and Thin Lizzy/Phil Lynott
Hey, Doc, are you familiar with Rory Gallagher and/or Thin Lizzy, Phil Lynott, or Gary Moore? I've noticed that some really fantastic musicians from Ireland have been quite noticeable ignored. I've found an editor focusing on Thin Lizzy, (and I think that beyond adding a couple of references to the other band members, that the band article should be the priority, as well as Phil Lynott's other work. My real interest though, along with that band is of Rory Gallagher, whose website has thankfully been updated to nearly top condition! I've got tons of videoed interviews with Gallagher on my You Tube site, and have a whole lot of magazine articles scanned which are in the external links section of his article (shame on me, I know).. there are several people who have expressed interest in the Gallagher article. Would you be interested in helping in any capacity whatsoever? I also edit half a dozen other articles like Derek Trucks and Cat Stevens, but Gallagher, even when I found his article haven been untouched virtually since 2005 full of urban myths, it was still getting more hits than some of the others, so although many Americans seem unaware of his impact on the Blues rockgenre, I think it needs to be addressed. Can you help? I like your work, so, I thought I'd toss this out as a hopeful kind of thing.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Popular Music Theory
I just wanted to say that those text books are a great reference, I'm glad that you pointed it out for the Sex Pistols article. You can access full text versions at Google books. Take care J04n(talk page)13:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
FAs
Hope you're well. Left unsaid but needs saying: I enjoyed collaborating with you for the Presley FA earlier this year, and would consider it an honour if you felt like repeating the experience sometime. I don't have a particular article in mind, but if you're amenable to the idea I may make suggestions at some point (and would welcome the same from you). I suggest we each retain the expectation that nothing may come of such suggestions if the other party's busy or not interested in an article, but if it happens, it happens. Sound good? On another note, since John Lennon achieved FA status a couple of weeks ago, it's had a small number of well-meaning but LQ edits. If you're at all interested in that article, care to watchlist and help keep an eye? No matter if not. Let me know in due course if you have any thoughts on other articles to take forward. PL290 (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
User conduct warning
I have previously reprimanded your disrespectful behavior towards another user on Talk:Elvis Presley, specifically in my analysis of one thread on that discussion page (most easily accessible in the section named "This talk page is poisoned" here).
In a post you made today you write "Since Meco and The Troll...sorry, the Troll...found each other here on "Toilet Talk"..." I contend that this type of language goes beyond mere flippancy and I find you are in clear violation of WP:WIKIQUETTE, specifically WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. If you continue to resort to name-calling and making snide remarks instead of finding appropriate venues to vent your frustrations or constructively address the underlying conflicts I will file a report against you at WP:RFC/USER. __meco (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello from London
Click here [12] and scroll down to forum member Elvis the Pelvis and follow the thread. Will leave you to draw your own conclusions! Rikstar40913:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Doc, what’s up - why are you removing this? We’ve been through all this before (somewhere in the archives) and pop / rock was settled upon. What’s wrong with pop as a category? It’s a perfectly accurate description of The Beatles’ music circa 1963. --Patthedog (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, it was discussed, as you say, but surely "rock band" then stuck for a good while as the preferred modern-day parlance? That's why I too took out "pop and rock band" the other day—I was surprised to see it while considering those other proposed changes to the opening sentence. Sure, they played pop and rock, but if you ask me, rock band describes them perfectly. Rock bands play pop too. PL290 (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It might seem only little thing (funnily, I was saying that to Mrs. Patthedog the other day) but it’s important to me. However, I’m sure that I’ll get over it in time. That’s the way democracy crumbles. Cheers. --Patthedog (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
In a recent edit to the page John Lennon, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Radiopathy•talk•22:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
In a recent edit to the page Sex Pistols, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Radiopathy•talk•22:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Since you didn't check my talk page, I'm transcluding my response there:
Very well, here you go, point by point:
This is not about Radiopathy versus Oxford spelling. There was no issue until you suddenly appeared at these articles and unilaterally mandated Oxford spelling. You are the only one who sees an issue here, and you have consistently violated policy and acted in a less-than-civil manner toward other editors who disagree with you and try to engage you in discussion.
Oxford spelling is not the primary spelling in Britain; all of the major newspapers as well as the BBC consistently use the -ise suffices.
You are still misinterpreting WP:COMMONALITY and you have been told so several times by several editors; your persistence borders on fanaticism.
WP:RETAINspecifically says that " ...the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted." In the case of The Beatles, that variety was chosen in September of 2001, with the use of the -ise suffix ("epitomised") in the very first paragraph. According to policy, the article should continue to reflect that variety to this day. I therefore do not have to seek consensus for this, since it is mandated by policy.
Radiopathy did you a favour removing your comment - I would have let it stand for others to see that your tone has become totally inappropriate. If you can’t make your point without insults, then you have lost the argument. You’re taking this personally, and making it personal - you need to cool off. Come back to this in a couple of days and let others have their say.--Patthedog (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Radiopathy is the one making it personal, by making false accusations that another party instigated change, when the reality is, he is the one going round waging his ethnic-cleansing campaign to mechanically remove Oxford spelling where it's already established in articles. He says above, "This is not about Radiopathy versus Oxford spelling", but he has been doing this for months or years, even turning up disguised as a sock and accusing me in the same way before the sock got blocked for other reasons. Radiopathy is the one who needs to back off, because if he ends up at A/NI, the diffs and his edit history are going to show he has not got a leg to stand on. PL290 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps I stand corrected, although this still doesn’t excuse ungentlemanly behaviour. DocKino still needs to curb his temper. Look, why not just do then whatever needs doing to end this squabble and report it - unless it has? --Patthedog (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you read the policy on personal attacks? Posts like this, about other editors, are not on here. Rather than stirring the outcome you want, they'll only make getting what you want more of a slog, because some editors will understandably want to have nothing to do with you. Since this is an opening editing project, like it or not, one must mostly find ways to get along with other editors. Comment only on sources and how to echo them in the text, not other editors. Likewise MoS/spelling woes, you can talk about those, cite sources and so on, but don't throw in name calling. If this carries on, some admin at some time will wind up blocking you to shield other volunteer editors from your taunts. The personal attack policy has aught to do with whether or not your editorial outlook on something like, say, spelling, is supported by sources on the topic, on English spellings, by en.WP policy or other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I read your post on my talk page. The thing is, personal attacks aren't allowed anywhere on this website, ever. If someone, say, in some editing spat, were to call me the devil's very own spawn, I could not taunt back that they were Mosley Nazis, even as a jibe in idiom. It's that straightforward, so don't comment on other editors, sooner or later, it won't lead to the kind of outcome you seem to want. Please find other ways to deal with editing disagreements. Citing sources, along with en.WP policies and guidelines, is wontedly a help. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I found you in the FAC review for Parks and Recreation (season 1). I am trying to get an opinion on whether Glee (season 1) might in fact also meet the criteria for FA. It is currently listed for FLC. Would you mind giving it a quick view and giving me an opinion one way or the other? Frickative and I are currently considering whether to change the nomination.
In my opinion, there is clearly more than enough narrative content to meet the criteria for FA. And a good job it looks, too. DocKino (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. We do have a difference of opinion here; one person so far has said it's not enough content in a certain area (content that just isn't available), and thus stick with FLC, which we may just let run its course regardless, but Dabomb says FA is a good idea now since the first time he saw it. We're debating trying FA in some way. Thanks for your opinion! CycloneGU (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
First off, there was a script edit preceding yours that impermissibly altered several quotations, and the most efficient way of dealing with the problem was to restore a version preceding that. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there was only one dead link tag in the article, and after my "rollback", I provided the updated, live link. Regards, DocKino (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Doc, it's Hunter Kahn. I know you're a busy guy, but since you were very helpful to me in my Tender Mercies FAC, I thought I'd reach out. I recently nominated Into Temptation (film) for FA, but it failed due to inactivity after it failed to generate any reviews of either support or oppose. The FA delegate suggested I try to get some of the film-oriented editors involved before bringing it back to FAC. I wonder if perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at it some time soon, before I bring it back to FAC (which I would expect to happen in a week or two, maybe), with the hopes that you might weigh in then? It's a relatively short article, but if you are too busy, it's no biggie. Let me know what you think. — HunterKahn04:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
So, the question is who's right? Bruno Blum, a french jounalist who was part of the event OR George Gimarc, an american writer who wasn't? Gimarc obviously wrote a rumour he heard. I've got Blum's book at home, I will submit the source later. One has to be suspicious of journalists who write about an event/festival without even attending it. The sentence I had erased yesterday, looks trivial.
There's another point that is bothering in the Sex Pistols article. Strangely, it's mentionned nowhere that Rotten wore tee-shirts with a swastika on it. There are pictures that prove it.
To be precise, Siouxsie was punched in another part in Paris, in a park near Tower Eiffel when she had slept with friends. It has got nothing to do with the actual Pistols gig who took place outside the town. So, why mentioning "Siouxsie's swastika causing a stir" here after a sentence mentioning the Paris gig, isn't it trivial? The swastika issue is important and wikipedia has mentionned it in the Siouxsie article. Why is it not the same about the members of the Sex Pistols ? You haven't replied to that point. As you are apparently the main user of the Sex Pistols page, I ask you this a second time : why is the Rotten's swastika episode not related in the article?
Carliertwo (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry!
Hey there, Dr. Kino. :D I see that you left a comment on the Into Temptation (film) talk page. I didn't see that until recently, so I apologize for the delay in responding. I think it's probably best to keep all the comments in one place, and the talk page seems like the best place for that, so I'll keep an eye on it from now on. Take your time in responding. Thanks for starting your review, and sorry again for the delay! — HunterKahn22:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I do not appreciate all of your comments directed at me on Talk:Punk rock. I am not stupid, despite what you think, I do know what I am doing. I have been trying to stay civil and not start a huge argument (it's very hard to), but I feel that I should say something to you about it. I find your comments (and you) very offensive. I may not have as much experience on Wikipedia as you, but at least I am nice to people. Now look, I do not want to argue, I actually would like to be friends with you, but I am not going to put up with you insulting me. I am not a brand new member of Wikipedia (I joined in January), though as far as I can tell, I am still considered one, so maybe you should read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. And by the way, you will be happy to know (I am sure all of your dreams will have came true), I am done editing the punk rock article, I'm very tired of dealing with people like you and DCGeist who keep insulting me (especially you, DocKino). And I might even stop editing Wikipedia entirely. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The the
You really should read this, [14]. It's my attempt to stop the war that has been going on for years. As the article is already called The Beatles, there is no need to keep repeating it in the article.--andreasegde (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
You have obviously read it, but you are now adding "the Beatles" in mid-sentence to the article when there is absolutely no need for it. You will be reverted, because you refuse to take part in the discussion, and seem hell-bent on doing what you think is right, because you think so. Stay outside the circle if you think that is the best to do, but expect resistance. We are doing our best.--andreasegde (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Obviously not. It's OK, because I'll wait, and then I'll revert. You might think a bull-headed approach is right, but two can play at that game. Have fun.--andreasegde (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)--andreasegde (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You are not here to decide what you think is right. This project (and you're not even a member of it), has been trying to stop the 'The-the' war for years, and you are being self-opinionated and destructive. We're almost to the point of a cease-fire, and you bring a gallon of petrol to the party. This is no no time to be an FAC punk rocker. Read, learn, and add your opinion, but do NOT think you can do what you like.--andreasegde (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
And?
"Harrison, who subsequently divested, and Starr"... And what comes after the verb...?
"and Brian Epstein 10%". Didn't know he'd changed his name.
"without informing the band members. The Beatles then bid". Two bands, huh?
"their remaining stake in Northern Songs to ATV on". Playing poker, or sticks in the ground?
"wall of the fan's screams". Just one single fan?
"'Live Beatles' and 'Studio Beatles'". No comment, except from Yoko.
"to join The Beatles, had already performed with them". Oh, good. I thought he might have joined the Merseybeat movement.
"and that The Beatles "more popular than Jesus now". Yoko again, I presume.
"Revolver, released in August 1966 a week before The Beatles' final tour," So who recorded Revolver?
"beat style subtly propelled The Beatles," Into outer space?
I think it's great that an article about The Beatles playing music by The Beatles and detailing Beatles' albums recorded by The Beatles, is also called The Beatles.--andreasegde (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Time to talk
Doc, your work on The Beatles today was up to your usual high standards, but you may not be entirely blameless for the response you got. I'm referring not even so much to the sweeping nature of your reversion last week, but to the tone with which you explained it then on the Talk page. Believe me, I know all the crap you and PL290 went through on that article, but you did jump the gun in this case and it might be helpful to acknowledge that, in whichever forum you deem appropriate.—DCGeist (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
When you were confronted with one editor, Fat&Happy, changing "African American music" to African-American music" you called his action "rank, stinking BS" and you called him a pretentious simpleton, violating WP:NPA. When I came in to reinforce the hyphen, you responded "No, it's only hyphenated if we choose to hyphenate it." At that point, however, you were in the minority. At that point, we chose to hyphenate it.
Yes, I understand that it may or may not be hyphenated. The point is that two editors wished to do so and you alone did not, but you gave the impression that there were more people choosing this path, that the non-hyphen group was larger. I checked the article's talk page and edit history, and I found no such discussion about the hyphen in "African-American" when it is used as an adjective. There is no consensus established, there is only article history.
In all the article milestones, all the assessments to gain GA or FA status, only one of them has an instance of the terms "African-American" or "African American". Both constructions are used by Steve Pastor in the December 2006 FA discussion, and it is clear Pastor uses a space for the noun and a hyphen for the adjective. In the talk page archives, the two styles are found at random, with most of the "space" versions found in your posts. The hyphen versions are found consistently in posts by User:Onefortyone. Thus, even talk page history does not support your position of a consensus being established. I think the question should be taken to the talk page rather than reverted further using only edit summaries. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
House is an American television medical drama that debuted on the Fox network on November 16, 2004. The show's central character is Dr. Gregory House (Hugh Laurie), an unconventional and misanthropic medical genius who heads a team of diagnosticians at the fictional Princeton‑Plainsboro Teaching Hospital in New Jersey. The show's premise originated with Paul Attanasio, while David Shore, who is credited as creator, was primarily responsible for the conception of the title character. It is largely filmed in Century City. House often clashes with his fellow physicians, including his own diagnostic team, because many of his hypotheses about patients' illnesses are based on subtle or controversial insights. His flouting of hospital rules and procedures frequently runs him afoul of his boss (and, later, girlfriend), hospital administrator and Dean of Medicine Dr. Lisa Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein). House's only true friend is Dr. James Wilson (Robert Sean Leonard), head of the Department of Oncology. Critically acclaimed for much of its run, House maintains high viewer ratings. Distributed to 66 countries, House was the most watched television program in the world in 2008. (more...)
Hey Kal, it's Hunter Kahn. You may recall that you had started to copy edit Into Temptation (film) a number of years back. I honestly don't recall if you had finished that review or not. In any event, I plan to bring that article back to WP:FAC in short order, as soon as my current nom for Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1) concludes. I was hoping to check in and see whether you had finished it or not, and by extension whether you think it's ready for the FAC process. (It had failed once before, mainly due to lack of participation in the review.) If you are too busy to look at this article, it's no big deal, I can manage without, but did want to check in before I brought it back to FAC. Let me know either way. Thanks! — HunterKahn04:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I agree with the removal of the external link I inserted. It was my attempt as a compromise between myself (who wanted an external link gone) and User:Judygreenberg, who wanted a low-quality website that hadn't been updated in eleven years included as an external link. However, if I'm not the only one that thinks either link should not be there, I'd be glad to both links removed from the article. - SudoGhost06:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't start. I've opened a WQA case against DCGeist, and you can be added to it too if you like. I have made no personal attacks while I have been the subject of several from this user. Absconded Northerner (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
As explained to you in my last edit summary, editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages. As I also requested: stay off it from now on. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring
I don't have the time to get stuck into the full issues here, but may I advise you to stop edit warring warnings onto User talk:Absconded Northerner. He/she is perfectly allowed to remove the warnings from their talk page, regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong". If you continue to edit war on their talk page, you may find yourself getting blocked by whoever reviews this entire situation. --Taelus (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Who are the biggest fan of The Beatles band at the English Wikipedia ?
I would like to know how exactly my small edits of the United States article were "poor, undiscussed, and unreferenced"... what is your rationale?
First, i linked the words middle class and suburban in a caption. How was that "poor" and why would it possibly need discussion and reference?
Second, you reverted my simple observation about US population distribution. Look at any US population distribution map (such as this one) and you will see that the observation I made was simple and accurate: The population is concentrated either on the eastern half of the country or along the west coast. If you wanted me to I could find dozens of sources with that simple fact.
Third, I made the caption for the American football image relevant. The reader doesn't need to know that this is a picture of a quarterback looking to pass the ball. What they need to know is that American football is the most popular spectator sport in the nation, which is already mentioned in the body paragraph, therefore the caption itself needs no discussion or reference, and is certainly not "poor"
I don't want to start an edit war, so please allow me to revert my edits back, as I contend there is nothing wrong with them. If you want me to source my info on US pop density, I will, but everything else is completely fine. Regards, Cadiomals (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Ramones reverts
Hi there,
I wonder if you could help me understand why you labelled my edits unproductive? There is a greater level of structure added compared the previous format.
I am removing the comment I added here a few moments ago. I have since seen your comment on the talk page and so I am removing what I added here and also offer an accompanying apology.
I basically just copied and pasted my message to you regarded my "poor, undiscussed, and unreferenced" edits from two days ago on the United States discussion page, and you have yet to reply to it. I would be happy to hear your criticisms, but if you don't reply soon I will be inclined to put back my contributions since they were in good faith. Thanks, Cadiomals (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
James Bevel
Hello. I noticed you removed James Bevel from the United States page. DC Geist and I had numerous discussion time on the subject, and the prominence is backed by historican David Garrow. What would you like to know about the subject which will set your mind at ease over the long-time inclusion of Bevel's name in the article. Thanks, and happy holidays and all that. Randy 16:49 21-12-'11
I'll discuss this broadly on the US talk page, but I wanted to say, on one very fun level, if you do take this seriously enough to do a full research project on the topic to confirm or deny my data (which I would think would be the only way to remove Bevel's name after it's been in the article for years, actually added by DCGeist after discussion) then you are both curious and lucky. To come to the realization that "Everything we know is wrong" (well, not everything, but quite a bit) on a subject, and then to dive into that inquiry, seems like one of the best rides a curious person can take. Please contact DCGeist about this (what happened to him, he seems to be off the article since December 7th, hopefully a well earned vacation). And nice to meet you! Randy 18:24 21-12-'11
This is an archive of past discussions about User:DocKino. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Benjiboi. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Please do not attack other contributors, as you did with this edit to User talk:Jeff G.. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
_(crop).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(crop).jpg){kind=link}
_(crop).jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
