User talk:ILike2BeAnonymous/archive 3

Arkiv numero three-o of my old talk stuff

Circular references

A circular reference, from the wikipedia article is something like "the Bible is true? Because the Bible says it is so." This is in no way shape or form comparable to describing a site's content based on the actual content of the site. If one says, "the desk is brown" and verifies the color of the desk by pointing at it, that is not a circular reference that would just be facts. In addition, there are no references provided in the entire antiwar.com article.

String in pegbox, your edit comment to Viola

Hey, there: no biggie, but strictly speaking, "The little bit of string inside the pegbox isn't going to affect the sound to any detectable degree." is incorrect. There is a difference sometimes audible that even depends on how many wraps around the peg the string takes. It's not so much about the steady state tone or the vibration of the short section of tight string in the box, but more about the way the speaking length responds as the player goes more or less deeply "into the string" with the bow. Easier to hear on a cello with the bigger dimensions involved, particularly on the lower strings. I heard this from Ken Meyer, a top-tier cello fixer in the Boston area, as he was remedying just exactly the number of wraps on my C and G pegs.

The part you trimmed out at that time probably deserved to go, since it was fuzzy and unsupported. Just wanted to pick the one little nit... __Just plain Bill 13:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait; just to be sure, are you saying that the little piece of string behind the nut can affect the sound of the instrument? The little piece betwixt nut and peg? If so, sorry, but that sounds like the worst sort of mythology and pseudo-science to me. I'm sure you can get any number of otherwise respectable players to testify to all sorts of nonsense. If I'm misunderstanding or misconstruing this, please let me know. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. The string behind the nut, and all the way around and around the peg to that little hole that it threads through. Not mythology, but a bit of practical optimization. Pretty much all the other things about the instrument have to be set right before you get much gain out of it, though. Consider that "the sound of the instrument" includes the way it responds to the things the player does. That much string has a little bit of stretch to it, and the more there is, the more it can stretch, and, in gross terms, the more the note bends when played vigorously. Difference between walking a steel rail and a slack wire is one image to explain it with. Talking about something you could hear with your own ears here, but it would be an extreme stretch to put it into any part of the pedia I can think of just now. Later, __Just plain Bill 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, still not impressed; this is pseudo-science as far as I'm concerned. I'll concede that there may be a minute but discernable difference in how a string feels and responds depending on how much is left free inside the pegbox, but that still falls into the realm of lore, not any kind of measurable phenomonon. I'm sure, for instance, that there are plenty of guitar players who will swear that it makes a huge difference to coil the free end of the string past the post of the tuning machine; we've all seen their guitars bristling with their coiled-up strings. (I wonder if this is the same set of players who are likely to use the projecting end of a string to park their lit cigarette?) +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Talking about bowed viola (& cello) here, not some plucked fretted thing with steel strings and a headstock instead of a pegbox. You a scientist or an artist? I ask because measurement and perception are pretty well studied and refined these days... never mind, if you haven't experienced it, there's no need for further concern. Next time I've got a gut C on, if I think of it, I'll give the length in the pegbox a poke and see how many cents it goes sharp and how long it stays that way under what conditions of bowing. Meantime, be well, __Just plain Bill 00:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to ensnare you in my little joke there about git-box players and their strange proclivities. (I take you have seen what I'm talking about, coiled-up strings boinging around like little Slinkies.) Just trying to be funny by using an absurd example of musical mythology.

It sounds like you're talking about the thing where you can actually tune a violin (or viola) string up a few cents by pressing on that little piece inside the pegbox; I've used that trick a time or two.

Regarding your experiments, no matter how crazy they may sound, I'm always interesting in hearing the results if you care to post them, peer-reviewed or not. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I always figured they coiled the strings up that way because they didn't have somebody else's fingernail clippers handy to nick the extra part off with. __Just plain Bill 13:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive the intrusion; the strings are coiled so that in event of breakage at saddle end the string may be salvagable, i.e. have enough usable length to enable it to be retied. As to the length of string post nut : yes it has noticable affect on the playing action/string tension of the guitar, although pitch and scale length is determined at nut the string's tension is affected by total length between the anchor points (saddle and machinehead roller) as the string moves freely through the nut slot. RichardJ Christie 04:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Richmond Medical Center

At present every editor is rearranging the deck chairs on this sinking ship. I'm not going to get at all involved with the article itself, but I do think that substantive edits need to be made. This is like a peace conference deciding on the shape of the table, not talking about peace.

I encourage you to 'be bold and make the great swathes of edits the article needs. That list, for example, needs pruning to a common sense and short paragraph. References to web resources could do with {{cite web}} and the whole article salvaged. Fiddle Faddle 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I cared at all about this article, I'd do as you suggested. I don't, so I probably won't. I was one of the people in favor of outright deletion. I'm afraid you're on your own on this one. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You care enough to rearrange the deckchairs. Your tinkering with the references is a perfect example. It is possible that an uncharitable editor might suspend an assumption of good faith. I suggest you either edit wisely and well or leave the article alone. Fiddle Faddle 18:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that I represent that remark, as all my edits have been made wisely so far as I know. And I don't remember any rules (or even guidelines) 'round here that regulate the frame of mind one must be in in order to edit an article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Trivia

Template:Trivia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pixelface 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Geolocation numbers

Oh, I get those numbers on Google Map and Yahoo! Map. You know there are bunch of numbers on the map link in the browser. Those numbers actually represent the coordinates of the center point of the map screen. Chris! _{my talk} 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mondegreen

The lines I added were legitimate misheard lyrics, no more absurd than the misheard lyrics in the rest of the article. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It was not only absurd ("one ton tomato" for "Guantanamara"? that's straight outta the old Billy Crystal schtick from "Saturday Night Live"), but unreferenced to boot. Sorry, but that article is pretty well full up with good, cited examples. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a citation [1], but I'll leave it out of the article, since I see can see that this is too important for you to admit you might be wrong. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 04:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it; it has nothing whatever to do with the quality of the article, and everything to do with my ego. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the link's there for you to look at, as well as the rest of the results from google (or yahoo, or your choice of search engine) for "one ton tomato". BTW, my dad sang that to me as "one ton tomato" a good 7 to 9 years before Billy Crystal was on SNL. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 04:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, but seriously, it's not a mondegreen. It's something, all right, and moderately funny, I'll grant you that; but it's an intentional mangling, not an accidental mishearing, somewhat akin to a malapropism, but not quite that either.

Besides, shouldn't that be "One ton of fan mail"?

By the way, you get points for editing Unicyclopedia. (Even more if you were involved with Encyclopedia Dramatica or some of the badder parodies.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believed it was "one ton tomato" when I was 3 years old, meaning it is a mondegreen as defined in the aritcle. And no it shouldn't be "One ton of fan mail", since my misintreptation proceeded that sketch with Dana Carvey and Patrick Swayze (NOT Billy Crystal) by several years. Finally, if you look at my user page you can see that my main wiki IS Uncyclopedia, though I was being serious here. I don't know why you need to insult me by comparing my work to Encyclopedia Dramatica, but if you do you could at least use a modicum of correct grammar (it's WORSE pariodies NOT "badder" ones!)--Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 04:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, meant "badder", not "worse"; ironic and edgy, dontcha know. And I think you meant to type "preceded" instead of "proceeded", no? By the way, do you realize your "sig" takes up more space than most of your comments? +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you the purpose of another bus picture.

You see some other transit pages have some pictures of their fleet. The images I put on pages, (for example, these images) kind of demonstrate the history of the San Francisco Municipal Railway, as some of the buses are being phased for retirement, so it's important to preserve some of that history. Not only that, I have a lot more images coming up.

Goodshoped35110s 04:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A question about this

Wouldn't that imply that the last movement is in A minor, F major, and A major all at once? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so (although that would be a perfectly legitimate point of confusion in, say, a piece of Charles Ives's). I just thought more conventional punctuation ought to be used, while still conveying that the movement shifts keys a couple of times. Don't you think most readers will work out for themselves that these are successive keys? +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps, although I didn't think that →s were unconventional. Is there maybe another clearer way to show that it moves from A minor, through F major, to A major (you probably know about the short A minor section between the last two, but the key listing bordered on too long as it was)? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  15:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, tell you what: if you change them back to the arrows, I won't undo that, even though I think it's kind of "unencyclopedic" (even though it does illustrate the modulations graphically, I'll grant you that). +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this; I don't have your page on my watchlist. OK, I'm going to change them back, and I know they are unencyclopedic, but I can't think of a much better way to (accurately) get the information across. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still don't like it and consider it unencyclopedic, but as I said, I won't challenge it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette

A user recently opened a wikiquette alert in reference to your comments at Talk:Point Isabel Regional Shoreline. I have to agree with the user who opened the alert, in that your comments crossed the WP:CIVIL line. Please try to stay cool and maintain yourself with civility at all times when discussing matters with your fellow editors, especially as I see some of your comments here on your own talk page could be seen by some as contentious at the least. --Darkwind (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture was "generated"????

Hey, you're a very funny person (no, really). The reason why I wrote (picture was "generated"????) was (OK. Fine. I admit it. It was intended so that way railfoamers can "Not WORRY" about those stuff). But, it was also intended so that way a "Muni Version" of the Boeing Vertol can be shown on this page. It may be converted into a wrecker, but there's no way to justify that because you know MTA won't tell it on their website. But, Nathaniel Ford, last year, has approved a measure that would rehab torpedoes currently stored at Pier 72, and that includes current wrecker 1008. When that's rebuilt and stuff, the Boeing will be converted into one of them. Thanks!

Goodshoped35110s 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

spiccato/staccato

Hello! I think we may be referring to two different things on Violin. When I saw the sentence about "up-bow and down-bow versions" I figured it was referring to the type of up-bow staccato in which many fast, accented notes are played with one sweep of the bow (the most famous example being Dinicu's "Hora Staccato.") Spiccato is similar to sautillé and is played with fast, separate strokes. Is that separation what was referred to by "up and down bow versions"? Best, Florestanova 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I was referring to spiccato, which has up- and down-bow varieties. Of course, you're correct; there's up- and down-bow staccato as well. But we're talking about spiccato where a string of notes is played rapidly in one direction or the other. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Foamers?

I actually agree with you for the most part on your attempts to contain out-of-control image proliferation on many of the transit pages; however, I'm not sure if you realize that "foamers" has a rather perjorative connotation, and I've noted a couple of times that it's your very first comment on a page. It comes across as pretty condescending, and it just strikes me as the sort of thing that would cause the exact sort of people who might be editing these articles to get their backs up, and not particularly conducive to productive conversation on the topic. --Jfruh (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the connotation, and it's intentional; that sort of cruft really has no place in articles such as these. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess my point is that you can remove cruft without launching personal attacks against those who add it. --Jfruh (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"better" image

do you really want me to give you a link to the discussion where you were the only person who thought that the current image is better? Really? —lensovet–talk – 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Rift zone

Is rift zone the same as a fault? Because here says something different. I don't know. Perhaps you can show me. Chris! _{my talk} 23:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not the same thing, which is part of my beef w/Cholga on this. It turns out that the article here you linked to isn't entirely correct either (surprise, surprise). For a quick look, type define:rift zone into Google and look at the 3 links that come up.

What I told her is that the map calls it a rift zone because an earthquake fault (the San Andreas) runs through it. The fault is still called that, a fault. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Then is the article I linked to has the wrong definition? Cholga can be difficult sometime to accept something new. But she is not a bad editor, so please be more patience when you explain something to her. Thanks Chris! _{my talk} 23:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I and Cholga just come up with a compromise in the article. So take a look and comment on it. Thanks. Chris! _{my talk} 00:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, are you saying that the map is wrong. Chris! _{my talk} 00:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Hey, Just wanted to drop you a line, I noticed that your conduct is being discussed at ANI.... Anyhow, thread is here.... Thought you'd want to know about it. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 05:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your revert at Arthur Miller

I disagree with the "unrolled" references on aesthetic purposes, but please be aware of what you are reverting in the future; I did in fact fix reference fifteen, which was not closed properly and therefore disrupted the citations that followed. If you had read the page history correctly, you would have known this before blindly reverting me. I fixed the ref again, but kept the formatting as was. I also suggest you attempt being a little more civil in your edit summaries; a little decorum is always received better in such circumstances. María (críticame) 17:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize you had indeed fixed something in that edit, so that was, as they say, my bad.

I do disagree about unrolled references: it shouldn't be, as you say, and "aesthetic" issue, but one of readability (of the edited text, not the displayed text, which of course is the same in either case). It's just damned hard to make out where all those parameters are when they're all squished together. But you're right, I should be more careful about not undoing valid edits. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I realize now I should have used a more detailed edit summary, so I'm at fault as well, and I apologize for that. I understand what you're saying about the references and how readability should be of utmost importance; I think my preference of "white space = bad!" comes from my early days on Wikipedia when people would "clean-up" my citations, so I've just fallen into the condensed references as a habit. When I edited the one section in the Miller article, I automatically began eliminating the white space after I fixed the typo, and even considered going back later to sweep through the rest of the article, which is why I put it on my watchlist. Next time I'll discuss such changes on the talk page first. Take care, María (críticame) 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Compact disc Logos

If you want to discuss, then by all means discuss. Summary deletion isn't discussion. Until then, I'll keep restoring the Logos section. --John Navas 02:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

West Marin

Well, I look at the West Marin article. It seems to me that there are some references in the article. (I don't have time to read thru those refs) But if those refs show that West Marin is in fact a region, then it is quite difficult to have the article deleted since this procedure requires Admin attention. If those refs only refer to West Marin as a simple term to describe western Marin County, then it is likely that the article would be deleted. Also the deletion process takes more than 5 days, Cholga in the mean time can research for more refs or improve the article. So it is hard to say, it is up to the Admin. Cholga sometimes doesn't understand Wikipedia policies and might insist on her position, but as I said, she still a good editors.

By the way, the Oakland articles I tagged haven't been deleted yet, because again the process takes more than 5 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishomingtang (talk • contribs) 02:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, Cholga can remove the template any time, if she thinks she has addressed the issue. So if that happened, don't revert or readd the same template as that is not standard procedure. But if the article is clearly a problem, then we would have to do it through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Opps! forget to sign, this is the first time that happened. Chris! _{my talk} 02:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I also nominate template:WestMarin at Templates for deletion citing concerns over whether the template violates original research. Chris! _{my talk} 02:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey there IL2BA i think you were a little overzealous in trying to get the article deleted, i didnt create it just to have it mentioned in dogtown, i did create it because i had allready mentioned it in dogtown and it doesnt yet exist at that point, having said that heres a buttload of references if you truly don't believe me, but if you were just being spiteful im sorry for you dude. as for it being mentioned in dogtown that is a whole differant story, and it should definatly be mentioned your arguement is that it does not exist but it does, two of the existing dogtown references "helen" and "hhs" allready mentioned west marin and dogtown, the county health report even defines dogtown as part of west marin, check em out and google it and lets put this behind us.Cholga^talK!

[http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/HH/main/ems/documents/Annual%20Reports/Annual_Report_2000.pdf 9 West Marin is defined as Bolinas, Dillon Beach, Dogtown, Inverness, Marshall, Muir Beach, Nicasio, Olema, Point Reyes, Point Reyes Seashore, Stinson Beach, Tomales and Lagunitas], this is directly from the county of marinCholga^talK! 02:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• [2],[3],[4], [5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19], okay let's see community groups, a school (West Marin School), newspaper articles, a bus service called West Marin Stagecoach, and newspaper which mentions their West Marin news section, mentioned in San Francisco Chronicle, its mentioned in reports from the county, business websites, realty listings, a soccer leage West Marin Youth Soccer, a community radio station which says its a station for West Marin, i hope this is convincingCholga^talK! 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Carnatic tuning

Dude, I'd like to think we're both on the side of Truth and Justice (tm) here, but I confess I bristled at your edit summary (and, regrettably, sniped back) regarding Carnatic tuning and violin playing position. I've added an external link to Musical styles (violin) for your enjoyment. Unsourced statements are one thing, but provocation ("likely untrue") seems useless and superfluous in this context. Be well, __Just plain Bill 23:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Persian violin tuning

You ask at violin 21 Mar 2008: what is "distinctively Persian tuning"? For a brief overview see [20] and search on that page for the work 'kuk', which is Persian for tuning. You say: The violin is tuned the same in practically all genres world-wide. Although the Persian distinctiveness is not radical, you've a lack of knowledge of Persian traditional classical violin music. You could download and listen to some violin albums by the exemplary Parviz Yahaghi at [21] (that site requires filling out a short, free, registration form). On the liner notes of one of Yahaghi's albums it says "The special tuning for violin... is D-A-B(kurun)-F(suri), which is known as chap-kuk." There the B(kurun) is different from B and F(suri) different from F. However, having said that, I've no desire now to re-insert the material written by me that you deleted, because I now think the generic violin article is too far away and peripheral from my Persian interests. -- Posted by I like to be anonymous too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.180.175 (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia violin page it says The use of nonstandard tunings in classical music is known as scordatura; in some folk styles, it is called "cross-tuning." At the top of the same page it says The violin is a bowed string instrument with four strings tuned in perfect fifths. The Wikipedia Scordatura article contradicts the latter assertion. I suggest you take the time to clean it up. I'm not getting involved. -- Posted by I like to be anonymous too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.180.175 (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, looks as if I was wrong about this. Suggestion: how about adding something in the "Tuning" section of the violin article about how this scordatura is used in Persian music? That would seem appropriate to me. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Marin Independant Journal

Hi, I am wondering if you can comment (positive or negative) on the article for deletion of Marin Independant Journal. Thanks Chris! _{my talk} 23:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

References and citations

Hi. I believe you are mistaken here. You're confusing references and citations. A citation is something that is specifically cited in the article. A reference is anything that was referred to in the course of writing the article: the sources of information, whether or not they are specifically cited. In particular, I referred to both of the books listed as references in the course of editing that article. A bibliography is a list of relevant reading materials, which are not necessarily sources of the information in the article but which may be useful to the reader interested in more information.--Srleffler 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of others' comments in AFDs

In the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional restaurants you apparently deleted my comment when you added your own !vote [22]. This should never be done unless in enforcement of some Wikipedia policy such as WP:BLP or to remove completely off topic material or spam I have restored the deleted comment. Edison 05:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no frigging idea how that happened. I thought I was just adding my vote/comment; I edited the section and saved it. How did that happen? +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the removed material basically agreed with your !vote, it appears to have been inadvertent. happens to everyone from time to time. A cut and paste from earlier complete versions would fix it, but I'm not sure if that is in accord with attribution rules. I don't want to just rollback or revert, because that would similarly lose later additions by others. Edison 15:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Read prod tags before instructing others

Anonymous,

If you would bother to read the prod tag prompting deletion you would find that it says tag can be removed upon article improvement or objection by anyone to the deletion. If you want to delete an article this badly just place it on AfD to hear from others. By the way the tag was further inaccurate in that it said the article is unreferenced; it has three sources. sincerely Anlace 14:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

pt. isabel

would you read the comments on the laci peterson section on the talk page before edit warring, you must agree its not really some insignificant factoid, mind letting it stay until we reach agreement on the talk page, feel free to rewrite it if you think its too detailed, but please comment on the actual talk page since there is a discussion going on. thanks.Cholga^talK! 19:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Flagstaff

Sorry for reverting your improvements; I was trying to restore the standard demographics wording and didn't mean to remove the capitalisation. Nyttend 20:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No harm, no foul; I've done it, it happens. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

hwy 1

Dude, according to the MOS it only has to use the official name in a link, but if we don't link we don't have to use it, and the parenthases is a way around it. I mean c'mon who would say CA SR 1 for San Pablo Avenue or CA SR 1 for 19th Avenue or whatever # El Camino Real is.Cholga^talK! 08:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

genre

you don't consider classical music a genre? --emerson7 18:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Alpha list of panflutists

I notice that people are just adding names. I alphabetized it, but I don't want to have to do it over and over. It seems that a note should be made. Some people think it is in order of status perhaps.. in the music world that would be normal. As long you keep it in order I don't mind if it is there or not. If you don't have time for that, then add the note about proper order of the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PanLover (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the article, as lists like that are implicitly assumed to be kept in alphabetical order, and advisory notes like that would only quicly clutter up articles. However, feel free to add a note (using <!-- comment -->) in the edited text if you like; that ought to keep some folks from adding names willy-nilly. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghosttown, Oakland, California

I already warn User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) about WP:3RR. So one more revert from him, I will report him. Just letting you know. Chris! _ct 01:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Ghosttown

I completely agree; the source is completely unreliable, and the article looks hoax-y. But that does not justify your continued removal of the source without consensus being reached. I don't care of you don't like the word; it's the way this wiki works. Please try to calm down and discuss things in the future before reverting blindly. Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

wp:points

this one is all you: "'Borderlining' (habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct)"

which one is me?Cholga^talK! 03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Link in Criticism article

Are you suggesting by inserting it that there's consensus to include that link? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, what does ex post facto mean, in that context? What has the concept of something being retroactively enforced got to do with consensus? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Paper recycling

The article on Paper recycling needs a lot of work, IMHO. I moved the "History" section from Wood-pulp paper to Recycling only because it did not belong where it was, not because it was a particularly well-written piece. I have busy working on a number of articles within the Pulp and Paper category, but haven't had time to seriously tackle the Paper recycling one. Are you able to assist? Silverchemist 14:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Flagstaff

Hi there. I understand your point about copyedit vs. proofread; the reason it is labeled that way is that I performed the "proof" (or second review) of the work that another member of the WP:LoCE had already performed. See the "copyedit" box on the talk page to see what I mean. Thanks! Galena11 21:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversions at Ghosttown, Oakland, California

Your pattern of reversions at Ghosttown, Oakland, California is placing you on the cusp of violating the WP:3RR rule, if it has not been violated already. Any further reversions of material may subject you to being blocked. Alansohn 01:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You've been edit warring at this article for far too long. I've watchlisted it, and if you continue to edit war, I'll block you. I have given Alansohn a similar warning, as he too is guilty of edit warring (which is part of why I haven't blocked you yet). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

languages

it is in the home, this uses census data, 24% speak spanish at home, you don't actually think ONLY 60-somthing percent of people in Richmond can speak english do you?Cholga^talK! 04:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Removal of RfC on Ghosttown talk page

Thanks for your notice. I have reviewed the page history. He (Alansohn) did removed my RfC, but that is because there is an error on my RfC tag. I will let this go since he put up another RfC notice on the page. Thanks anyway. Chris! _ct 17:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Invite!

Some invite, click here for more!
Hello, ILike2BeAnonymous. Would you be interested in joining my new Wikiproject, the User:Goodshoped35110s/Wikipedia:Wikiproject Streets of San Francisco project. If you are interested to join, click on this link and put your name there! Hope you join! -Goodshoped 23:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I know. It's bland.

Hey, thanks; I'll take a look at it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Plovdiv Granada of the East external link

I removed this link earlier today due to the following violation of Wikipedia rules

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

Also I did put an explanation why in the discussion section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koal4e (talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

---

There are many issues with the article such as its bias against Bulgarian people as it even has the following inaccurate comment written in it "The outside walls are used as a urinal by Bulgarian drunks," while talking about a mosque. Can the writer clearly say that he knows Bulgarians choose to walk up to the mosque after a night drinking and use it as a toilet?

Whats worse is the fact that the material is factually inaccurate as it talks about Muslim persecution without touching at all on the persecution of Bulgarians under the Ottoman Empire. Also its view of Plovdiv today with miles upon miles of factories that are empty shells of a former communist age is untrue as Plovdiv is currently building commercial properties at a fast rate due to the economic boom there, an economic boom that is faster than that of most European countries.

There is no Leningrad Avenue or Industriyalna Road in Plovdiv, actually there is not even a Leningrad avenue in Bulgaria at all because Bulgaria does not have avenues and you cannot even put Industriyalna and Road together as Industriyalna is feminine and Road is masculine.

I have a problem with this article not due to its content about Islam but due to its blatant inaccurate information and written language that is clearly against Bulgarians, this is why it should not be allowed on the Plovdiv article.

I would love to hear your thoughts. +Koal4e 22:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I never received any feedback from yourself about this article and its removal yet you have since being trying to reinsert it back on to the Plovdiv article on many occasions. May I ask what qualifies you to understand the history of Plovdiv and what are/are not factual inaccuracies with the link?

I am in Plovdiv for many months of the year and my wife is Bulgarian and lived in Plovdiv till we married. I have a great knowledge on Plovdiv and the Bulgarian economy/language etc and see that the article is totally inaccurate factually, is against the native people of Plovdiv and does not belong on the Wikipedia page for Plovdiv as many other editors agree. +Koal4e 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also translated the Bulgarian language at the bottom of the Plovdiv discussion page for you. +Koal4e 09:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the link again and put my reasons clearly on the discussion page, I notice that you feel ("Factually incorrect" and "against Bulgarian people" (?!?!?) not grounds for removal of external link, even if true.)...how can factually inaccurate information not be grounds for the removal of an external link?

I feel we need to find common ground regarding this link otherwise we will find that it keeps being removed and reinserted, I have tried on numerous occasions to enter dialogue with you on your talk page in regards to this but have not as yet received a response. Please respond so we can find common ground and come to an agreement which will save both of our time. +Koal4e 01:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again I find the link reinstated without any comment on the talk page or here where I have tried to converse with you, I feel that if this continues then I will have to ask for formal mediation/arbitration as this has been going back and forth for months without any outcome. I will give this as my final try at contacting you to discuss this link and find a jont resolution before taking things further. Please reply. +Koal4e 13:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As we have not come to any agreement and it is felt that you have not entered in to enough dialect in regards to the link even though it has been deleted by multpile parties and reinstated on countless occasions by yourself I have requested arbitration on the subject.

Please view the arbitration page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration +Koal4e 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see the arbitration request was denied, so I'm just going to ignore it. So far as responses go, you've apparently missed them: I've been putting them on the article's discussion page.

By the way, I think you could spend your time on this article much more productively by doing something about the metro population figure, which has had a "citation needed" tag for a long time now; how about finding the correct figure, with a reference? That would be more useful than arguing over taking this link out. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I was too hastie with the Arbitration so I have opted for a request for comments on the page, unfortunately I would carry on putting my time to other uses if it was not for this link. Other editors and I deem it inappropriate to the article due to its factual inaccuracies and bias, you do not, due to this it keeps being removed and reinserted in to the article. +Koal4e 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• This issue has long since been resolved with the link in question being removed indefinately. I thank IL2BA for adhering to the outcome of the discussion and wish them well in their future endeavors +Koal4e 13:49, 02 May 2008 (UTC)

West Oakland, California

I disagree with your remark, "Unnecessary; not likely for the BART station to be confused w/the neighborhood." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Native94080 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Update as of Nov 11 2007 - your changes to my updates are being undone by other users.
For sure, you are not a Bay Area local. You are just some unknown, anonymous person.
DO NOT ADD/CHANGE ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU CANNOT PROVE!

west berkeley city

thanks for the edit, better wording —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moped45 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote parameter in references in Ghost Town, Oakland article

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the existence of that parameter in the template is idiosyncratic: it's the overuse of that parameter in this article which I'm objecting to, and removing. Look around you; I challenge you to find another article that makes such heavy use of that facility. As it was, there was more meat in the references than there was in the article, which after all is just a stub. It's a matter of proportionality. What's idiosyncratic is the way the editor who stuck them in in the first place stubbornly keeps putting them right back in, without batting an eyelash or giving a word of explanation. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the question is proportionality. Rather than simply removing all of the quoted text, a rather disproportionate response, you may want to use the article's talk page to propose a middle ground that might address your concerns in an effort to reach a consensus on the subject. Alansohn 12:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

List of string instruments

Good job removing the stupidly huge list of unrelated bowed string instruments. That person added that list to so many articles! Badagnani (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Preventing a MacGuffin revert war

I think anon IP65 was on the harsh side, removing Ebert as well as the synthesis, but I plan on removing Neale's unreferenced synthesis from the Lucas and Ebert comments December 1st. It would probably look better if the quotes were moved to description and the last paragraph of description moved to Problems. But the complete Ebert quote is actually a crazy reference to Wikipedia that's actually created more problems. Anyway, if you're going to keep reverting everything anybody does, just because, I will have issue because the synthesis must be removed-- the quotes are cited, but the conclusion has no backing, because it is dissent. Eventually, I will find my screenwriting books with references to MacGuffins, but until then, I hope to come to an understanding of people's various interests in the page in the hopes of preventing an edit war. Therefore, if you can provide some description of your interest, even if it solely a matter of the status quo-- let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMetro (talk • contribs) 02:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom?

How do you feel like nominating User:Chrishomingtang for adminship? He's been here for two years and I'd think he would make a good administrator, but just need your help to co-nom. (I'm nominating too). So, if you want, you can drop me a line on my talk page if you want to co-nom Chris. How 'bout that? Thanks in advance. -Goodshoped 04:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

California rent control

Hi. Do you have a citation for rent control being outlawed in California during the 1990s?

All I was able to find was the 1995 California Assembly Bill 1165, which I cited in the Cotati, California article. My reading of the bill suggests to me that the Legislature's intent was not to make local rent control ordinances unlawful, but to preempt them by restoring the landlord's right to set the initial and all subsequent rental rates except in the case of state-subsidized affordable housing. Perhaps it is a subtle distinction, but outlawed to me would imply legal sanctions against cities with rent control laws on their books. Also, by failing to mention the affordable housing loophole, your statement makes it appear that Cotati's Title 19 is in violation of state law.

I'm not a lawyer, by the way.Stepheng3 (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The legislature didn't outlaw all rent-control laws, only the vacancy-control provisions (i.e., "strong" rent control) that cities such as Cotati had. The specific law was Costa-Hawkins (you can look that up on-line). I think there's a pretty good reference to that in the rent control article.

Here's that reference ("Rent Deregulation in California and Massachusetts: Politics, Policy, and Impacts - Part II"). +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a strong interest in the subject of rent control in California. As I wish to avoid an edit war, I'm trying to establish a common understanding.

I did some further research. The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act is the name of Civil Code sections 1954.50-1954.535. Here's a link: full text of Costa-Hawkins Act from leginfo.ca.gov. The Act originated as Assembly Bill 1164, which was introduced by Assembly Member Hawkins, co-authored by Senator Costa, and passed both houses of the legislature on July 24, 1995; it's obviously the same "Costa/Hawkins bill" that Dreier refers to. If you read it, you'll discover that AB 1165 didn't "outlaw" anything or make anything "illegal". Instead, it affirmed the landlord's right to set rent in certain cases regardless of local laws. You'll note that Dreier never uses the word outlaw in his article, and he uses illegal only in the context of immigration.

In both the Cotati, California and Rent control articles, you've added text saying that California outlawed strong rent control or made it illegal. It didn't. Nothing stops California municipalities from having (or putting) strong rent control laws on their books. However, as long as the Costa-Hawkins Act stands, such laws are ineffective except in special cases such as mobile homes (which Dreier points out are exempt from the Act). This effect (state law overriding local ordinances) is called "preemption."

I'd like to revise these articles to use the phrase like "largely preempted" in place of "rendered illegal" and "outlawed". I'd cite URLs for the bill and the act, so that Wikipedia users can study them in detail, if desired. I'd also make sure that both articles mention the exclusion of mobile homes, as noted by Dreier. What do you think?

Stepheng3 23:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you say you're not a lawyer (nor am I), but it kind of sounds as if you're dancing around a fairly obvious fact with obscure language: yes, it's true that municipalities could pass "strong" rent control measures, but since they've been preempted (the correct word) by the state, it's as if that particular provision had been rendered "illegal". I'm not attached to that wording; however, readers should be aware that Costa-Hawkins had about the same effect on rent control in California as Proposition 13 had on the ability of cities to raise money through taxation. (At least in the article on rent control, if not in other articles, such as the ones on Cotati and East Palo Alto, which mention rent control as part of the cities' histories.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me promptly. I agree with your assessment of the effect of Costa/Hawkins. I'm sure the bill had a major impact on tenant-landlord relations in those five cities, and I wouldn't want to obscure that fact through wishy-washy language. I'll keep that in mind when editing. Best regards, Stepheng3 15:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I agree with you that it's better to be precise here: neither wishy-washy nor vague and "unencyclopedic". +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to split DDT into sub articles

There is a proposal to split DDT into several sub-articles. As someone who has contributed regulary to this article, your input would be appreciated. Yilloslime (t) 22:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky's 6th

You can gripe about the "unencyclopedic" nature of my edit all you want, but could you spare a moment to explain what made it any worse than the rest of the article? The first, third, and fourth movements are given helpful and informative descriptions in a style that I'd like to think my single sentence mirrored rather well. Why, then, is it somehow more "encyclopedic" to limit description of the second movement to a remark on the time signature and an external link that cites the opinion of a single hobbyist as the final flowering of "much speculation"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suspenlute (talk • contribs) 07:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your edit summary...

I didn't "pass by and think that some poor editor's getting short shrift". I looked at the situation, and noted that people were neglecting to use the talk page when doing so would both save edits and set a proper example. There is no harm in explaining one's reasons for reversion on the talk page; in fact, it's encouraged. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I just realized you weren't talking to me in that edit summary... I apologize for misunderstanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

True identity

Please reveal your true identity. Unless, of course, you just happen to LIKE to be anonym- oh wait... Sarsaparilla (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What "sophomoric"?

Your comment with the minor edits at Peoples Park is mystifying. A small though significant fact was added in, no "tone" or POV. Or perhaps you're referring to the entire section that was there already. Just wondering. Tmangray (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about tone or "POV"? What was sophomoric was the way it was written; something about "the Junior High school" as I recall, which is certainly not encyclopedic writing. Nothing wrong with the substance (except, of course, that a citation really is needed for that, regardless of whether you witnessed it). That's all. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that all? IMHO that doesn't seem sophomoric, but merely redundant since the school's status is already mentioned in a prior passage. Hey, sometimes we edit here on the fly, and stuff gets sloppy. I recall seeing the incident reported in the Daily Cal, Berkeley Barb, or even the Gazette. I recall the uproar at the school district office as parents---including my own---expressed their outrage. My brother was a student there at the time and the gas permeated the campus. Tmangray (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you, and I'm glad it's in the article; it would be nice to find a reference to an article supporting it, which of course will be difficult since that all happened pre-Web ... +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

External links in Contra Costa County city articles

not sure why you deleted references in External Links for cities in Contra Costa County when the site listed covers news in all of them. I post this query here because I cannot clearly see where to add a news discussion. please advise.Worldviewpr (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Those links blatantly violate the Wikipedia policy on external links, which you ought to familiarize yourself with (I'm assuming you're new around here). Specifically, what you did was commonly referred to around here as "linkspamming", where the same link is wrongly placed in a multitude of articles where it is not relevant enough to warrant inclusion. Also, new comments go at the bottom of talk pages, not the top (use the little plus-sign thingy at the top of the page to automatically start a new section). +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

External link Plovdiv - Granada of the East

I removed that linked because its content are filled with false information and it is clearly biased. This opinion is also shared by most people in the discussion page. +Avidius —Preceding comment was added at 00:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That opinion is certainly not shared by all, and doesn't come close to constituting a "consensus". I trust, though, that you will be leaving some notes with your edits in the future? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The only one who doesn't share that opinion seems to be you. By the way can you tell me when was this article created ?+Avidisu (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds Redundant, But Isn't

"16th Street Station depot" is a technically correct term, and would be the way the railroad itself referred to the building. In RR jargon, a station is a place, not a building. Some stations have depots, many don't. To the ear/eye of someone who knows RR stuff, its irritating to hear a depot referred to as a "station". However, I myself am aware that in common usage, "station" often means "depot". In this passage, it struck me that since there had been another depot at 16th Street previous to the one central to the article, the distinction was necessary. But maybe not. No big whup. Tmangray (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"They are too references"

On this edit of yours and its summary: I think that if you look at an article, book chapter or book with endnotes (sources etc. arranged in order of first use) that's put out by a reputable publisher, those notes will be titled "Notes". They'll rarely if ever be titled "References", a term used like "Works Cited" or "Bibliography" for works that are listed in alphabetical or similar order.

Wikimedia's naming of the tag "references" is an odd one. It strikes me as unfortunate. Still, readers seldom encounter its name, so it hardly matters (it could just as well be misspelled, "refferances" or whatever). Titling is a different matter: Why call notes "references"? -- Hoary (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"use American date format, please"

One of us misunderstands all of this, and I don't think it's me.

It doesn't matter which order you write a date in, as long as it's marked up in the approved way. Compare:

• 3 January 2008
• January 3 2008

When you're not looking at the source, what do you see? (And now try looking at the source.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It does matter.

I'm not sure what point you're after here, but since I have no preferences set, what I see is what I see. The first one says "3 January", the second "January 3", in both the source and the rendered text.

For articles on American subjects, the native date format (i.e., January 3, 2008) should be used (and vice versa for articles on UK subjects.

This ground has been gone over many times, in the MOS and without. Better to use the native date format and not look for trouble. Hope that helps. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem concerned about date formatting. This being so, you may wish to set your date preference one way or the other, so that all dates would appear in whichever format you prefer.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to fiddle around with the dates however you wish: for all I care, you're welcome to change "3 January" to January 3," in articles somehow related to Britain. It just seems a terrible waste of your time.

Yes yes, very likely MoS legislates US date format (even where it has no effect for those who care) within US-related articles. I take your word for it: I don't have the stomach to look. Though I did perpetrate MoS-Iceland, I tend to avoid MoS where possible: I find that it's edited by a majority of sensible people but also an impossibly tiresome minority of querulous codgers (of any age). Unfortunately in many articles I work on I have to subject myself to MoS-Japan, which rules for example that the names of Japanese people must be written in such a way as to prevent accuracy from disturbing the prejudices of the uneducated.

Further, the whole idea of a simple dichotomy between US and British English strikes me as idiocy attributable to such factors as slavish adherence to simplistic "spell checkers" (wordlists) and the like. Just two examples from the "British" side: (a) the (London and Manchester) Guardian now pretty consistently uses the month-day,-year date format; (b) plenty of British writers and the OED itself generally prefer -ize/ization over -ise/isation.

Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have an extremely naive view of things pertaining to national (or cultural) differences. It actually does matter; people here (the U.S.) sometimes react negatively to things like dates that are formatted contrary to the local custom (and I assume the same is true in the U.K.). Like it or not, call them "idiotic" if you like, these are irritants to a significant number of people (myself included, to be sure), and should be avoided in writing if at all possible. For instance, the use of British spelling and date formatting is seen here by some as an effete pretension, akin to our unhealthy obsession with All Things British manifested in such places as PBS (due, I think, to a massive, lingering national inferiority complex, but that's a different rant for a different day).

By the way, I reject the advice to set my preferences to avoid seeing the dreaded "wrong" date format appearing. I'm not so much interested in how these look on my screen as how they look to the vast majority of readers here (99%, I'd say) who have no idea that there even are things called "preferences" that they can set here, and who simply see whatever the last editor put into the article. Most Wikipedia readers are not geeks, which is to say they're not editors here. That is the audience we should be at least attempting to respect. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? Hmm, I thought it was the British who had an unhealthy obsession with All Things British. Certainly the British papers, even the not obviously jingoistic Guardian, are brimming with Britain, Britain, Britain. (Much of the leftover space is devoted to the US.) For the Americans, I'd call it a rather quaint obsession, considerably less unhealthy than certain other American obsessions. Meanwhile, good US medicine for anglophilia is a reading of H. L. Mencken, whose influence is far too little apparent in present-day reporting on the election carnival. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally something we agree on (Mencken); I'll drink to that. I'd go a bit farther and say that a healthy dose of Ambrose Bierce wouldn't hurt none neither.

Americans are too clueless to even know how jingoistic they are (and I'm one of 'em, yup). +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's true of Americans, it's also true of lots of other people. Small countries with small populations were a safer bet till recently, but they've invented new bogeymen (notably their darker-skinned denizens). Mencken today: read up Matt Taibbi (start right here), and of course Frank Rich (who seems to have been booted off the IHT). -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those; will add to my "to read" list. (Didn't Rich write for the NY Daily News?)

By the way, a request: I just looked at your user page and saw my comment above there. Do you think you could remove it? I may have been a bit, um, hasty in my diagnosis there, and possibly may have, er, misjudged you. No biggie. (I do think you're right on in wearing that comment before it, from "Brettr", as a badge of honor.) Hopefully you'll garner even better examples of disapprobation in the future. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn, and I really liked that quotation. OK, I'll wipe it. But do me a favor some time and ascribe pure evil or similar to me, OK?

I can't answer you about Rich offhand, I'm afraid. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bass rosin

Hi, The statement about the skill of a bass player having an impact on the amount of rosin they apply is reasonable. A professional bass player with a major orchestra with 20 years experience is going to have a much more sophisticated understanding of how much rosin (or what type of rosin) to apply for a given orchestral piece, given the temperature and humidity in the performance venue, than a beginner. A 15-year old beginner bass player, on the other hand, may slather on a sticky, soft rosin onto the bow, even though it is a hot, humid day, and the orchestra is performing a delicate, quiet piece of music.Nazamo (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be so, but a statement to the effect that the amount of rosin applied depends (in part) on the skill of the player is much too trivial for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Pears rather than Pears? Really?? Huh.... never knew! Thanks! Korossyl (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda cool how the Wiki-rendering software takes whatever is contiguous to the end of the link and makes it part of the link. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

!! I never even noticed that. When did they implement that? In the past I've definitely seen links that are only partially linked... Korossyl (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"These things just clutter articles and add little"

I disagree with you here[23]. The issues of clutter and usefulness are separate, but I am unconvinced that my edit created a problem on either front. Overlinking can be distracting, but adding one link to a sparsely winklinked paragraph does not cause "clutter." You will see from my contributions I am not out to link as many terms as possible. Addressing the issue of whether linking one term adds value to the article, I think it certainly does--particular if the term is likely to be unfamiliar to many readers. Many times, while reading articles, I've found myself confronting a technical or archaic term and clicked on the link--and been pleased with what I've learned--even if the subject matter of the linked article isn't directly related to that of the first. Such minor enhancements add more than a little to articles, in my experience.

Check out this excerpt from the MOS:

In general, do create links to:

* Word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker (or in another dialect). If the word would not be translated in context with an ordinary foreign language dictionary, consider linking to an article or Wiktionary entry to help foreign language readers, especially translators. Check the link for disambiguation, and link to the specific item.

--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cigar external links

Please see Talk:Cigar #"External links" should go for a possible way out of the revert battle you're having with User:68.155.82.233 over Cigar. I left a similar note at User_talk:68.155.82.233. Eubulides (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wholesale changes: Remove low-value "man from Mars" Wiki-links.

Hi. I see you've been going through quite a few articles and unilaterally removing links that you consider to be "low value" and "from mars". Perhaps you should seek consensus before making these types of changes - especially through so many articles. I also find your remark that other editor's contributions are of "low value" to be less than polite. Toddst1 (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The observation that these links are "low-value" is correct and needn't be taken personally. The Wikipedia Manual of Style even uses this phrase, "low-value links", and discourages their use. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Plovdiv

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Plovdiv. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoJaBo (talk • contribs) 22:50, 24 January 2008

Palinka

I'd just like to thank you for your efforts at Palinka. I have no idea what to do. I don't want to editwar, but there's just no way to communicate at all with the other editors. I see you're having troubles elsewhere, so I just wanted to say that yes, you ARE appreciated. Korossyl (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's to be done about that Janos Kurko character; after 3 different editors have left notes on his "talk" page, he still hasn't bothered to respond, not even with a single word in an edit summary. The guy is apparently one of those "drive-by" guerilla editors. Maybe time to ask he be blocked or something? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Here's something you've edited before. Care to help out User:Colourinthemeaning and User:El C who are editing Pisgat Ze'ev to insert the more neutral and internationally recognized term "settlements"? Everybody is being careful to remain under 3RR, and to use non-confrontational edit summaries. The difference this time is that unlike when you tried making similar edits and were continually reverted, the reverters are not winning, although they are attempting to recruit more friends to help get a win for their POV. This could get interesting. PS. Love your edits and beautifully cutting edit summaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.111.226 (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So SlimVirgin, et al, are still guarding that article like junkyard dogs, eh? I'll look in on it.

Thanks for the compliment; I must say that I usually feel like someone editing the scrawlings on the walls of a public bathroom. Can be fun sometimes, though. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Pisgat Ze'ev

G'day, thanks for your edit on Pisgat Ze'ev in removing the capitalization, totally did not see that. You have said in your edit summary though that, 'Actually, this probably ought to be removed altogether, owing to the weakness of the linked article.' and I am just wondering why it ought to be removed altogether and if you might be able to explain to me what is wrong with these five sources that is not wrong with the one source that is listed for it being a neighborhood? Cheers, Colour. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What I suggested ought to be removed was the Wiki-link to "international community", which is an extremely weak article. (Just what the hell is the "international community", anyhow? What the US/current superpower says it is? Europe? Who?) Check it out; the first thing on the page is a "multiple issues" tag. I wasn't referring to the references you mentioned. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah I certainly appologise for jumping to conclusions and completely misreading that! I agree the term is vague, and really depends on the context in which it appears - i was however using it in this sense to note that this is the position of every government in the world (with the exception of Israel). Now that you have pointed out that page to me, I think I might try to work on it a bit more as I have a few books and publications which could help to improve that page. So thanks for the new wikimission! Cheers. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

SCSI History

I fail to understand your continued attempt to truncate the SCSI history portion of the SCSI page to eliminate factually correct and historically relevant information. You should note that my recent "wordsmithing" corrected a long standing statement and actually shortened the article by a few characters. Your proposed truncation detracts from the content, please stop reverting Tom94022 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on SCSI. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please see talk:SCSI. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeh (talk • contribs) 07:43, 31 January 2008

A discussion you may be interested in

As if the article didn't have enough problems with Josh Allain editing it. You may want to add thought to Talk:Jimi Hendrix#Is it any better?. I always thought the article was rough and needed some TLC. But it doesn't look like the wave of edits over the past 5 days have helped. Perhaps you know of other editors, interested in this discussion. I never edit the article other than rv'ing vandalism (when it's not a prot... which it is most of the time). I've always felt this article should be a Wiki showcase piece and deserved an honest Feature Status push. But, due to the popularity of the subject I guess, it's a magnet for every "weekend music historian" that finds their way into Wiki. Perhaps you can nail the problems down better than I can. Once I read past the new lengthened lead-in... I feel like going to sleep. 156.34.220.142 (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that feeling exactly; the sudden inertia, like your entire body is made out of clay, at seeing the results of dozens of successive edits by an "eager beaver" piling up debris in the middle of the once-clear waterway (is that enough mixed metaphors for ya?). But I found a surprisingly salutary solution: simply revert all of that editor's edits. There's hardly anything worth keeping in all they did. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done. And I am a librarian. There can never be "too many metaphors" or my own workplace would drive me insane. There is no "goin ' postal" in the vast/silent halls of a University Library... we just go "libby" In this line of work... at the end of the day I go home... engage my early 70s vintage HiWatt stack... don my late 70s vintage Gibson SG... and "peel paint". It's a excellent way to vent. Sometimes, after reading Wikipedia, I have to use the same therapy. 156.34.220.142 (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My admittedly crass editing (now that I look at it from the position of semi-understanding of the ways of wiki) was spurred by the lazy, US oriented view point, riddled with US colloquialisms & music press oriented "journalese" which betray a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on at least some of the writers, of the huge international interest and initial promotion of Hendrix' music. The very intro itself is worded in this way, by it's omissions it is implying that Hendrix was only famous in the UK and only due to his appearance at Monterey became wider known. This is a gross missrepresentation of the facts. First of all Hendrix cannot be said to be "famous worldwide" and if he was, it could not be entirely due to the Monterey Pop Festival, there are almost entire continents where he is little known. Secondly he was internationally famous and appeared on most of the existing European TV and radio pop shows of the day (outside of communist bloc) and also Australia, New Zealand, South Africa & Japan, prior to Monterey. Whereas in the US Hendrix was virtually ignored by the media (press, radio and TV) and his first two singles there failed to sell (almost any) then, after the US press covered his appearance (several unflatteringly) as part of the festival, he started to become better known there, (the film only being released over a year later)resulting in his laterly released (compilation) LP appearing in the Billbord chart at 109. Also the rampant duplication, repetition of unfounded rumours, hearsay, localised gossip and other nonsense (The hat talk "trilby", "bowler" ha-ha-ha! the madness!) Jameselmo (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the reasons for removing my last edits? I condensed duplicated entries, added proper more trust worthy references (direct quotations from Hendrix and his father, against some notes off a sampler album of dubious provenance), added 'citation needed' to some very dubious assertions and removed a short and time wasting piece of gossip to the discussion page from whence it could be easily restored.Jameselmo (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about edits removed today, you're talking to the wrong person; I haven't touched the article for a couple of days now. Do you know how to look at the article's history? Just click on that "History" tab at the top of the page. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Plovdiv link

Whilst neither you nor Avidius (talk · contribs) has technically violated the 3-revert-rule, there is no doubt that both you and Avidius are edit warring over the external link at Plovdiv. The history of the last 100 edits: [24] is unacceptable and other editors are complaining about the disruption this is causing. For now, I am simply asking you and Avidius to cease edit warring at the article and to try to find either compromise or consensus on the talk page. CIreland (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked you earlier to cease edit warring over the external link at Plovdiv. However, you have continued to edit war at the article: [25]. This is not an effective way to resolve the dispute and is highly disruptive. For this reason, if you do not cease edit warring, I will block you per WP:EDITWAR and WP:BLOCK. CIreland (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Plovdiv. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You've been warned many times already over your edit warring at Plovdiv. At the talk page, there is a broad consensus for not having the link due to its low quality. Not only are you the only one inserting the link over and over again, but you refuse to discuss the matter at the talk page. Try to argue your case instead of disrupting the article. JdeJ (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Neighborhood" or settlement?

Peace Now also calls it a neighborhood - that isn't a euphemism for anything, just a description of a bunch of houses. Whether or it should be called an Israeli settlement or not is a separate question, and it certainly shouldn't be the first word of description, especially when it is disputed by a significant minority. --Robertert (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Content

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Varna, you will be blocked from editing. JdeJ (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Whip in Mahler's fifth

I see you have edited about the discription of the use of whip. I have a Dover Publication of the fifth's full score and the score states slapstick instead of whip. Indeed, the slapstick plays no different of whip in the symphony. The edition in my hand is 1904. Addaick (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no such materials at hand; it may be that they used the term "slapstick" to mean what we now call a whip. I suspect this is kind of an anachronism now; most people would know the instrument simply as a whip. If you want to do a little research, maybe you can confirm (or not) that "slapstick" is still in current use; I don't think it is. (That term now applies to a genre of comedy.) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that slapstick is not a common term. But I do think that "slapstick" in the score is the same as "whip" nowadays. The reason is that (if you have listened to Mahler's fifth), whip appears in the third movement only. When I refer back to my full score, following the music, the rhythm of "whip" is just the same as the notes printed on the score book. It is no doubt that slapstick is whip actually. Also, if you search for slapstick in Wikipedia, you will be led to the page of whip. Addaick (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at my last edit there and see what you think. (I'm relying on your information about the score, as I don't have one.) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, something still get wrong. My full score's edition is 1904. That means 1904 edition has whip(slapstick) being scored already. Addaick (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that occurred to me too. Why don't you do a little research and fix up that section yourself? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK,OK Addaick (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Oakland

I've reverted your recent edit to Oakand. The link you removed pointed to an ordinary HTML page, with a further link to other articles; therefore your reason given in the edit summary is invalid. Also, one should not remove references which are (in theory) hard to access and replace them with {{fact}} templates - the reference exists, it just needed a better one. (Which I provided.) Please be more careful and thoughtful with your edits in the future. Argyriou (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The web page pointed to by the reference there did not contain the stated information about the location of crime in East Oakland; rather, that information was on a subpage which required Flash or some other plugin to view. The link given in a reference needs to contain the information directly; surely this is possible with a little research.

By the way, I tried to look at the revised link you put in but got an "Item not found" error. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My bad on the revised link - I'll be fixing that. Meanwhile, the section I blanked had the failing that even if it were properly referenced, it would be unencyclopedic content. It's partially spam for some anti-gentrification outfit, and it pretends the only area gentrifying is West Oakland. There's a place for a gentrification section, but not for the content that was in it. Argyriou (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please try to find a textual link to that crime information (surely it's out there somewhere). Regarding the gentrification stuff, not so fast: the section may fall short of encyclopedic in its current form, but gentrification is definitely a hot current issue in Oakland, one that deserves about that amount of treatment in the article. The section could certainly be improved, and obviously is lacking in citations. Let it stand a while longer before nuking it, OK? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Two refs provided, one textual but old, one the actual map from the Chronicle. Gentrification section re-nuked because I didn't have the patience to deal with the edit conflict. If you know enough about Oakland's gentrification issues to write the section, go ahead, but what was there doesn't deserve to stay, because it was crap, even if sources had been provided. Argyriou (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

Hi. Please refer to this notice. Thanks. Regards, El_C 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please present your position and any suggestions on how to solve the dispute here. El_C 10:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent lumberjack job on Lake Merritt article

I've "boldly" reverted a paragraph you deleted, in wholesale fashion, from the Lake Merritt article which describes the location, height, facts, and name of the proposed 42 story sksycraper project, which contains a reference link to the Planning Department staff report on the project so folks can do further research on it. This section consists of 3 factual, concise paragraphs, and don't forget that aerial photo of the project in the layout makes these 3 short paragraphs look longer than they actually are. At this point I do not feel this section is out of proportion in comparison the other sections of the article. If you disagree, please explain yourself on the article's talk page.Critical Chris (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Mondegreen

Why did you remove my entry in "mondegreen", regarding Close Encounters of the third kind? It wasn't unsourced, I wrote "in the making of documentary", I cannot link a DVD. It's trivial just like the others, so I don't know who are you to decide to delete it.--Gspinoza (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Potrero Hills

Hi ILike2BeAnonymous,

I just wanted to let you know that your activities on the article linked above constitute edit warring, and a number of the associated edit summaries constitute personal attacks. While you haven't violated the letter of WP:3RR, you seem to have violated the spirit, and so I suggest you do your part to calm it down and take it to the talk page or dispute resolution (specifically, this case seems to be a good candidate for third opinion).

Finally, I'd like to remind you that you're essentially arguing over the capitalization of a word in a stub. You might want to take a look through WP:LAME to get some perspective on that. Thanks! --jonny-mt 04:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and requested that the page be protected until the dispute is resolved; User:E has granted that request. Please use this time to come to some sort of compromise. --jonny-mt 09:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Romani people#Origin

I think you may have mistook the sentence I edited, "Mahmud’s repeated attacks deeply disturbed the infrastructure of Multani society.", as my own addition. I was just trying to have a stab at the "clarifyme" tag and the hidden comment within that paragraph as the history will show.

Rather than deleting the sentence, I'd like to leave it up for a week to give other editors, including the tagger and the adder, a chance to agree or disagree with that suggested change. I don't think half a day was sufficient notice. BTW, I think the original intention of the adder was to causally link the upheaval of Multani society to the emmigration of the proto-Romani. So, despite it being implicitly clear to native English speakers, many readers may require the link to be explicitly spelled out.

I wish to revert that part of your edit on these grounds, but on such a hot topic, I will await your response for a day, in case I've overlooked something. :)--Thecurran (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for asking. But that sentence should stay out. It is not clear just what significance that statement about the disintegration of the "infrastructure" has. If the distress caused by the seizing of the temple wealth can be shown to be related to subsequent Roma history, then it can stay in; but until then, it's just another interesting, but irrelevant fact, of which there are far too many cluttering up articles here. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical mass edits

Ha! Thanks for bringing[26] some curmudgeonly levity, and good copy-editing skills, to the project!  :) Wikidemo (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done sparring with you. Back to complimenting your edits. Good work here[27] on Your Black Muslim Bakery. Wikidemo (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'm reverting the removal of J Stalin

Is that the person who keeps doing it seems to have some particular passion for removing this rapper from the encyclopedia. As I mentioned in the AfD he started, I have no idea if the guy is important or not, but as a strictly technical matter he seems to have lots of significant mentions in real (if not very prominent) reliable third party sources. I'm wondering why this person is so persistent in trying to get this artist off the encyclopedia. Of course I'll assume AGF and not question the motives. But the actions seem a little strange. We should first answer the question whether this musician is significant. If he isn't notable he's off the encyclopedia, period. If he is a notable artist, it's reasonable to list him as we usually do among the people who come from a particular place....we do that for schools, cities, etc. I think the fact that the article is a stub and its subject a 4-block project makes it more, not less, relevant that an artist comes from there if he is indeed notable. If Bruce Springsteen happened to grow up on New York City we wouldn't put him on the article for that city. He adopted Asbury Park so he's listed in that article. Wikidemo (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job....

....on keep the Potrero Hill article sane. David D. (Talk) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking another editor

{{helpme}}

I'd like to intercede on behalf of another editor who's been blocked; where do I do this? Quick link? Thanks. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You could contact the admin who blocked the user in question (this can be found by viewing the user's block log, and should be the first step you take) or you can add the {{unblock}} template to the blocked user's talk page, making sure to add your signature to the end of the unblock reason. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - As it appears the user in question has already requested an unblock, you could also add your comments below the unblock template already in place. By the way, he'd like you to elaborate on one of your pieces of advice. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cypress Village, Oakland, California

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cypress Village, Oakland, California, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cypress Village, Oakland, California. Thank you. Icamepica (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove

Hi ILike2BeAnonymous,

Given your history of interaction with User:Boomgaylove, I thought you might like to know that I've filed a sock report at the link above. Thanks! --jonny-mt 03:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

j stalin

user wikidemo reverted my removal of the selling candy on the bart train, and also removed my {{fact}} on the non contentious claim that he started rapping at age 13 which is cited based on unpublished album notes which cannot be found. this is on the J Stalin article, would someone intervene and revert and also discuss?Icamepica (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning on civility, edit warring

For this edit[28]. Pleaes do not call me "irrational" and please do not meatpuppet by contentiously edit warring to delete sources and sourced content on behalf of a blocked user. Wikidemo (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you going on about, "edit warring", "incivility", etc.? I merely disagreed with what I saw as overloading a tiny stub of an article with a spurious, totally unnecessary reference to a person whose notability seems to be in question. You seem to be the one who needs to get perspective here; you seem to be a bit defensive about this subject. And using the word "irrational" as I did was not a personal accusation, but a characterization of the edit. Sheesh. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You've stepped into a cluster of articles plagued by a sockpuppet problems, joined the wrong side, and accused me, one of the productive editors on the subject, of all kinds of things. If you are for real and care about the project, please don't oppose efforts to deal with disruptive editors. You seem to have a content objection which on the merits is simply misguided. But whether you're right or wrong., any content issues you have about these articles you can deal with in another week or two once the dust is settled. If you are not, we'll figure it out soon enough. Wikidemo (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Acorn, Oakland, California

An article that you have been involved in editing, Acorn, Oakland, California, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acorn, Oakland, California. Thank you. Icamepica (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dogtown, Oakland, California

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dogtown, Oakland, California, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogtown, Oakland, California. Thank you. Icamepica (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pedal steel guitar

First, thanks for all your efforts to keep David Gilmour (and others that don't belong) off the list of notables. Second, I do appreciate your input about the page. I have posted some new stuff on the Talk page there. When it's convenient, I hope you can respond to those posts. Regards, JSC ltd (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning: NPA

For this edit[29], which I've deleted along with the rest of the thread you've started. Are you trolling? That's completely uncalled for. Wikidemo (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How dare you try to censor this discussion? If you think for a second about what you've done, it should be clear that you're trying to suppress discussion. You're free to respond to comments you object to, but not to censor them. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How dare I head off your calling me ignorant? You're in a ridiculous position to try to demand a right to be uncivil. Your comments are out of line. Stop it. Wikidemo (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you've added your personal attack a third time. Rather than revert you again, I'll ask you here to retract and remove it yourself. You're insisting on your "right" to make that attack without being "censored" so I'll just ask you straight up. Are you standing behind it and do you want to leave it on the talk page? What I've said is actually true, which makes your edits doubly strange, but that's beside the point on a civility question. FYI, I've mentioned this exchange and your past ones in the ongoing boomgaylove report on AN/I (see WP:ANI#Yet more attacks). Wikidemo (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

With this edit[30] you have now passed WP:3RR in your repeated insistence on inserting a personal attack on the talk page in question. I am in process of asking for administrative intervention. Please self-revert. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

post-mortem dispute note (in case anyone is reading this). The events that gave rise to this are long over. As far as I'm concerned IL2BA and I have worked out any differences. Wikidemo (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Crocker Highlands, Oakland, California

An editor has nominated Crocker Highlands, Oakland, California, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocker Highlands, Oakland, California and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Pisgat Zeev II

If you call it a settlement, why do you locate it in Israel's expanded East Jerusalem? It seems to be a contradiction. This settlement is located in the West Bank according to the UN, as they neither recognise Israel presence in East Jerusalem or their expanded borders which include Pisgat Zeev. It is therefore only located in E Jerusalem according to Israel, who do not view it as a settlement. I had not removed a reference to "settlement" but had left a mention of this stance in the latter part of the intro. North Jerusalem is more accurate as it is described as such in the Peace Now link provided. The UN link does not mention PZ so I removed it. Chesdovi (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So far as the references for that statement in the lead go, there were too many, as someone had gone overboard in trying to "protect" that statement, so your removal was an improvement. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

You say that "'neighborhood' is a disputed euphemism and shouldn't be used" - who disputes it and what do they say PZ is instead? Pro-Palestinian organizations like ARIJ[31] and Peace Now[32] take the position that it is a settlement, but they don't question that it is also a neighborhood, neither does Palestinian official Saeb Erekat[33]. Global Security also refers to it as a neighorhood[34]. Your reversion also removed other information... maybe you might rethink your position? --Robertert (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that PZ should be described as a neighbourhood in the first line as that is what it is in reality. Live there and you receive a council tax bill from the Jerusalem Municipally whether you like it or not. The international view can also be mentioned. As to the location, Northern Jerusalem is more accurate and is described as such in the Peace Now link provided. My version would read as follows:

Pisgat Ze'ev (Hebrew: פסגת זאב, lit. Ze'ev Peak), is the largest neighborhood in northern Jerusalem, with almost 50,000 residents. It is located east of the neighborhood of Shuafat, west of the Arab villages of Hizme and Anata, and south of Neve Yaakov. It was built as part of the Ring Nieghborhood project on land annexed by the Jerusalem municipality from the West Bank after the Six-Day War and is therefore considered an Israeli settlement by the international community, although Israel disputes this. Chesdovi (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you've got it exactly backwards. In the interest of proportionality, and owing to the extreme prominence of these and other settlements in the Occupied Territories, the fact that it may also happen to be a "neighborhood" of an Israeli city is secondary (it should be mentioned, but not before identifying it as a settlement). I have no doubt that residents get all kinds of tax bills; this in no way changes its status as an international bone of contention that needs to be introduced right off the bat. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What do I have backwards? You said that "neighborhood" shouldn't be the first word because it is disputed and I presented sources that show that isn't true. I can also present sources that show that the Israelis and co plus the facts on the ground do dispute the settlement position. While you might think "its status as an international bone of contention that needs to be introduced right off the bat", generally wikipedia articles are introduced with the most neutral information, and only then mention controversy in context. --Robertert (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Double bass

It's still important to point out that it's used in more "old-timey" versions of pop music (as well as some folk/acoustic music, such as European Gypsy music). That could be done by saying it's used in many genres of folk music, as well as in popular styles, most prominently in..., then list the main ones: bluegrass, pre-1960s rock and roll, etc. If so, the list won't get out of hand. Badagnani (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Moodswinger

An editor has nominated Moodswinger, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moodswinger and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unrolling citation templates in virus

Please don't do this unilaterally, I think this breaks up the text in heavily-cited articles to such an extent that they become almost impossible to edit. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary; especially in heavily-cited articles, it makes it much easier to separate the article content from the meta-content (the references), which otherwise make it very difficult to edit. I know there are differences of opinion on this, but almost all editors I've come across agree it's better to have them "unrolled". +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

File me under the "rolled" group then. :) If you come across an article where they are bunched, since, as you say, are strong differences of opinion on this, I think the wisest course of action is to leave them as they are, or ask on the talkpage if people mind you reformatting the references. This will avoid unnecessary friction. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So you like 'em tightly-rolled, eh? OK, I'll go ahead and broach it on the discussion page. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Microphone

I thought the cite from the High Tech Journal story might be adequate to verify the role of nanomaterials in ribbon mic manufacture: In Ashland, two former Boston Scientific Corp. engineers are applying their knowledge to music. SoundWave Research Laboratories Inc., founded by engineers Robert Crowley and Hugh Tripp, is applying a patented nanostructure material to studio-quality recording microphones. "The problems in ribbon microphones has always been signal purity and output level, and this material can improve both by orders of magnitude -- particularly now that computers are used for recording more often than tape," said Crowley. SoundWave's acoustic materials, the newest of which is called Rosewellite, uses carbon nanotubes and other, proprietary nanomaterials for precision sound reproduction, Crowley said." - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the cite. I am still an amateur when it comes to reference formatting and templates : ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

yo

sup foo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carritotito (talk • contribs) 06:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Roma people

Hi. Just wanted to respond to your comments at Talk:Roma_people#Vote since you called the vote phoney. I agree that a vote isn't ideal, but I felt that we needed to show how small a minority the users who want to move it are. The discussion was going nowhere, but by restricting each editor to one vote I hope we can show that the clear majority want the article to stay named as it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Phonograph

Hey, come on, we need more advertising here. After reading about the Thorens turntable, I wanted to rush right out and get one. And I don't even have any vinyl records. I figured it would just look pretty, sitting there. P.S. The paragraph just above where that other one was, beginning "one should note" is improper wording, POV, and original research also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I missed that. When did that creep into the article? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Awhile back, apparently. It was stuck next to the previous paragraph without even a line break. I zapped it. Any paragraph that starts with "note that" something-or-other is an automatic candidate for zapping, in my book. First, it's POV-pushing. Second, it's not an encyclopedic way to write. Third, it's probably lifted from someplace. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of months ago: [35] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And the Violins Stopped Playing

No, I am not a native speaker, but I speak damn good english. Its always a pleasure to see the work of others blasted for their apparent inadequacies. Tourskin (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment; the writing in that article is terrible. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia here, remember? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be easier to read with a few more paragraph breaks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content not on the user. Who cares if the user is not a native english speaker. Besides, if anyone out there has the energy to complain, then why not channel some of that time and energy into implementing suggested improvements?Tourskin (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're not talking to me, as I did not comment on the user. In any case, seeya. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln brigade

Your insistence on your conclusion that the entry about the indictments of Abraham Lincoln brigade recruiters by Frank Murphy is unencyclopedic and ungrammatical is completely baffling. It also ignores an important encyclopedic (and documented) fact. I'll also put this on the Discussion page. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Stan

If you had gone to Frank Murphy, you would have found a reference. As to the capitalization, I see that as optional, but certainly don't care one way or the other. If you have a preferred place, please let me know, so that we can all get along. Best regards, 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Stan

Unexplained

Don't call my edits unexplained before looking closely at them, dickhead. --Gligan (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They're unexplained if you don't leave a single word of explanation in the edit summary. What part of that don't you understand? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this fool has something to do with allegations of "dickhead". Notice his choice of signature. (He's history, by the way.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh; that editor appears to be yet another sockpuppet of Qrc2006, Cholga, etc.. And no, I was the one who called him a dickhead. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tonewood

I'd appreciate your comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tonewood#unreliable_article

RichardJ Christie (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Top Importance Chicago Articles

If you want to help me choose Category:Top-importance Chicago articles, come comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Current_Top-importance_Candidates by June 5th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article review of San Francisco, California

San Francisco, California has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you have made at least 25 edits to Chicago. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)