User talk:Nyannrunning

Johnnie Ray

Please be polite in your edit summaries. Addressing a comment to "foreigners" is racist and also quite ignorant. From where I'm sitting you are the foreigner. Remember this is a global community. Do you think that American culture is not as well recognised throughout the world as it is in the US? Do you honestly believe that Europeans and Australians have never heard of Love Boat? You seem to think it's an important point that many of Ray's contempories appeared in Love Boat while he didn't. It may be no more than a coincidence. It's not important unless it's given some context. Grammatically it makes no sense, because you link it within the sentence to say that "although" Australian promoters brought him to Australia. "Although" indicates there is some kind of connection, but there's not. In any case, please refrain from insulting other contributors in your edit summaries. Rossrs (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This entire article was until recently an insult to Americans until we removed the overemphasis on the United Kingdom and Australia. The article used to have dates in the non - American format, such as 10 January 1927. A few British - friendly words like "plethora" and "fodder" are still there, but I'm not complaining about them. The long list of Ray's "hit songs" still is confusing because the American reader will think he kept scoring big hits until the 1960s, when in fact every success after 1956's "Just Walking In The Rain" was overseas. You must forgive us for wanting to know when one of our people fell out of favor with our grandparents.

Aussies and Britons may have seen "The Love Boat," but they don't know how vital it was to the career of a fiftysomething easy - listening singer in the late 1970s and early 1980s. If you never went on that show, then your career was low profile. That at least three people Johnnie Ray worked with in the 1950s did "Love Boat" in late 1970s is relevant. It doesn't matter if a "coincidence" is the reason Johnnie never did it. The fact is he didn't do it, and his career suffered. In the 1980s, the American people couldn't see a low - profile old man at the Hollywood Bowl, Madison Square Garden or the Capital Centre. That wasn't our fault. It was the fault of superficial entertainment bookers who used prime-time TV as their bible.

Many grammarians, British and American, can tell you that the word "although" points to a contrast between two phrases. There certainly was a contrast between the high - profile gigs Johnnie Ray played in Australia in the late 1970s / early 1980s and his invisibility on American television. When he sat home in Los Angeles watching TV performers other than himself, he was the same person who was beloved overseas. The same guy. So there's a tenuous connection, but there's also enough contrast to warrant "although."

"Love Boat" will have to go back in. If you are Aussie or British, then we thank your promoters of the 1980s for remembering Johnnie Ray, but he was one of us, and we deserve to know why our people ignored him for decade after decade. We don't watch "The South Bank Show." Nyannrunning (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Janis Joplin

I hope you'll consider cleaning up your edit, and especially bring the language up to an encyclopedic tone (e.g., "dumped her" and "shooting up") and make sure everything is sourced. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to do that now. Thanks for the reminder. Nyannrunning (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Janis Joplin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. See talk page, this has been determined by consensus. AndToToToo (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Further, it is not acceptable to use deceptive edit summaries to disguise reversion of changes. Your last edit summary to the Janis Joplin article stated "I don't want to include Myra Friedman's doubt of her source on Joplin's interest in a marriage license, either. It's not in this version. See Discussion page for more." You did not mention the return of the consensus determined removal of another section. Such actions can result in loss of your editing privileges. AndToToToo (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Edit Summary didn't give me enough room to say that. I said more on the Discussion page. Nyannrunning (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, you did not address any reasoning for your last reversion on the talk page. Your last talk page entry that addressed the section you returned was made 2 hours previously to your last reversion. The final entry you made had nothing whatsoever to do with specifics. Your use of the edit summary was deceptive. Rather than post entire sentences, perhaps you could find a way to convey changes made in the edit summary in a more concise manner, one that covers what you are actually doing to the article. Perhaps it would help for you to review editing policies and guidelines at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia and Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines, as well as WP:DR, regarding steps in dispute resolution. I was asked to look at the Janis Joplin article and what was transpiring about it, which is a step in resolution. At this point, my opinion is firmly that you are acting outside of and in contradiction to consensus. Please see the Joplin talk page regarding this issue. AndToToToo (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Edit Summary for my most recent revision does, in fact, say, "I don't want to include Myra Friedman's ..." Perhaps it would help for you to learn how to read. There was nothing deceptive. There is no trickery here. The article still includes the paragraph about tattoos. Nyannrunning (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain, if you will scroll up to the comment I left prior to your last response, that I affirmed that you made the comment regarding the Friedman material. The point I was making is that mentioning the Friedman material had absolutely nothing to do with the changes you made to the article under the guise of that edit summary. You pointedly avoided mentioning that you had returned, for the third time, the "Contemporary concerns" section. You then referred anyone who looks to discussion on the talk page. However, you added no new discussion to the talk page in anticipation of the last change you made, your last talk page comment had taken place two hours prior to the last edit you made on the article. Other discussion had been added in the meanwhile. That is using a deceptive edit summary, and is not in accordance with guidelines for using edit summaries. Meanwhile, please refresh your memory regarding Wikipedia expectations of civility, tenditious editing, no personal attacks and etiquette and direct your comments to the content under dispute and not making snide remarks that imply that I cannot read. It will not be tolerated and will be taken to the adminstrator's noticeboard if it happens again. Your history on your own talk page in dealing with others leaves much to be desired in terms of civility and good manners. I would suggest you rethink how you interact with others and assess your ability to work collaboratively, rather than contentiously. AndToToToo (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say you couldn't read? The Edit Summary should be longer! Nyannrunning (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...if you scroll up just a little bit to your last comment, you will see that you said "Perhaps it would help for you to learn how to read" on May 27, 2008 to AndToToToo. NMBJ69 (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. IP4240207xx (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Regarding your comments on Talk:Jim Morrison: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attack on that page. What was it? Where did I impersonate someone else?Nyannrunning (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This violates WP:NPA. Just avoid those sorts of comments in the future and you'll be fine. Bstone (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)