User talk:Urthogie/Archive2

oh my gavoigiddy is in a shplaigan of delight!

the beast hath been felled! thou hath accomplish'd what I could not! praise!

Lockeownzj00 04:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wow! calling the source...that's more resolve than I would have. want to detail that adventure? I mean--was the number out in the open or did you have to do some super-cool sleuthing?

and, i was actually thinking of giving you a barnstar but I'm in a hotel right now, not my home. I'll choose one at a later date, or perhaps make me own.

Lockeownzj00 07:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dude

i got msn messenger, i'm writing a response to you on the discussion page of origins of hiphop. we should definetely talk this out. :) i'd very much enjoy that, actually. let's see what we can achieve toghether. --verbose

aha!! AIM account --> gaimboyeureka add me on, yo

Anonymous user privileges

Hello. I noticed your question at the General complaints page, and I thought I might give you something to think about. Sometimes, I've seen anonymous users editing user pages that haven't been vandalism at all. It's most likely that the users are not logged in. It would appear that user page vandalism, while unwanted, is not as much of a problem as article vandalism. --King of All the Franks 08:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly not. We should hope that its low frequency makes it stand out a bit more to Recent changes patrollers. Happy editing! --King of All the Franks 08:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the Barnstar. Always glad to be able to help. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your RFA support

Hi Urthogie/Archive2! I have been on a refreshing wikibreak for the last week, so this is a belated thank-you for supporting my adminship nomination. If you need any assistance, let me know. Happy New Year (if that's your kind of thing) and חנוכה שמח (if that's your kind of thing)! jnothman ^talk 18:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age of Hip Hop

Hello! Can you place your reasons for justifying this article in a Keep reference on the AfD page, please? That way, more people are likely to give it a keep vote and the consensus will let the page survive. Best wishes for the New Year, -- (aeropagitica) 15:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Hello again! Based upon the article as I have reviewed it this afternoon, I would go towards a Keep vote now. I notice from reviewing multiple hip-hop web pages that the definition of a 'golden age' is rather nebulous, some placing it in the 80's and other from 80-92. I think that it would be helpful for a researcher to have these interpretations noted in your article as well as answering a fundamental question regarding why this was a golden age compared to say the period between 1995-1999? I will modify my recommendation on the article's talk page. I appreciate the work that you have put in to the articles on the musical genre and I can also see that it, like so many other articles on WP, needs more work to make it a really good reference source. I look forward to reading more about it in the future, especially as it is being edited by someone with such an interest in the genre. Regards, -- (aeropagitica) 17:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration question

Hi Urthogie. Accepting an arbitration means that you feel that there are issues involved which need to be arbitrated on; it does not mean that you side with any of the parties in the case. Cheers, Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

userbox propositions

I think the Policy #7 is just confusing and clogging the page... Would you support me incorporating your comments in #6 into #4 to simplify the matter? That way we can simply remove #6 and #7 and focus support at #4. The reason I say this is that we cannot assume users' votes, and #4 has the most votes that would need to be assumed. Deano (Talk) 18:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't remove yours in any case - I'll leave you to do that. All I'll do is incorporate your text from #6 into #4. As I read it, this will come out pretty much identical to #7... just higher up on the page!

Deano (Talk) 18:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I think we may have a problem. Several of the supports for #4 are done on the basis of possible allowance of ideological categories. Your statement in #6 directly conflicts with this. Put this on hiatus for now, methinks. Deano (Talk) 19:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screw that - please review proposition #4 and act accordingly. Hopefully that all checks out! Deano (Talk) 19:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just checking if you're back yet and whether you've had a chance to check the new propositon. I think the whole idea has pretty much been railroaded by two particular individuals, but it'd be nice to see at least some consensus being formed. Prop #4 took some stick for incorporating #6 but I stood by it anyway! Deano (Talk) 16:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my response to your question dealing with Prop 11.Gateman1997 19:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool philosophy page

Hey Uthrogie, I'd have liked to have continued our discussion on the AfD a bit more, but I don't think I'm supposed to modify it after it's been closed out. However, I did want you to know that by voting keep on this particular article I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be better sourced or rewritten, merely that as the concept does seem to exist among some scholars, we ought to have an article on it. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to clarify things for me. I'd be happy to give you a hand making sure that the article attributes these views specifically to scholars rather than presenting them as "fact" or whatnot, and if for some reason I'm not able to help out, I might be able to give you a hand taking it to mediation. Sound good? Thanks for the time you've put in trying to run this one down. Cheers, --Dvyost 21:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reggaeton

You hardly know anything about Rap/Hip Hop, let alone Latino Rap and Reggaeton. Continue to vandalize the reggaeton page and you will be reported. Good day.

Wow! Attack of the spammers. Thanks for the insult, and good day to you too!--Urthogie 20:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop vandalising pages.

Vandals don't create 1500 pages. Youre an anonymous spammer, please read wikipedia's policies. Thanks :)--Urthogie 21:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The Epopt

His term doesn't expire until December 31, 2006, so he doesn't need to run until the next election (whenever that is). See WP:ARB for each member and when their terms expire. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprot

Please don't add this tag (or any other protected tag) to an article. You haven't the power to protect an article, so to add this tag in the absence of actually protecting it is just misleading. I almost didn't follow through with the actual protection because I saw the tag and assumed that another admin had gotten to it before me. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. Thanks! · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise on DCV and an apology

In recent days I have grown disgusted with Deeceevoice's comments and actions. As a result, I am withdrawing my support of her. That said, Justforasecond has behaved very poorly throughout this entire affair but more so in recent days, placing comments on DCV's talk page merely to stir up trouble. As such, I am proposing that both DCV and JFAS be placed on personal attack parole for a year at [1] Perhaps this is a compromise that a majority of the parties involved could agree to. Please check it out and see what you think. In addition, as a side note to this I am apologizing for my use of "lynching" to describe this RfAr. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talkpage. Much respect. --Urthogie 21:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapping

You are editing this effectively as the history of hip hop except not talking about beats. Any history in the article should be about the development of the technique of rapping ONLY. You should not go into detail about different genres (gangsta rap, rap/rock, LL's girl-friendly songs). NWA were a very significant group in the history of hip hop but there were totally unsignificant in the history of rapping as a technique and vocal style (i know you didn't mention them, it's just an example). After all, there is no discussion of Bob Dylan's literary-style poetics, or bands like Jefferson Airplane and The Beatles' late-60s veiled drug references, at singing. And you really don't need to quote so much or so often. And regarding the hip hop rivalries article, group feuds are not included because a) they occur in every genre of music; that article is focused on lyrical battles for supremacy, who's the best, battles for respect, etc, something which is for the most part unique to hip hop. and b) there are far too many examples of internal group rivalry to include; the article would be incredibly long. --Jamieli 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link Changes

Please stop removing links on certain wikipedia pages. You may not agree with the authors, but the links belong. Sorry to hear you didn't like that Japanese rice candy much, by the way. Japanese can be a tough class.

hip hop

not all of it was biased. it included historical facts like the rise of rap-metal and such acts as Outkast who define artistic rap these days and those parts should have been left in.

Islamist terrorism

Hi; I like your recent improvement. I think you come very near to neutrality, though I can't say how long it will stay there, of course. One thing I would like to suggest is that you (and everyone) refrain from talking about "POV" or "NPOV" in the edit summary. Characterising another's work as POV, or your own as NPOV, even if accurate, may antagonize people. And really, it's not very informative as an edit summary; we all want neutrality of viewpoint, we just disagree on what that is. Best regards, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm just wondering why you deleted the information I added about the Muslim Brotherhood? Palmiro | Talk 15:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the first paragraph under the "organisations" heading, where I had added some info about the Muslim Brotherhood's gory past and somewhat more respectable present, including in Syria where it did a lot more nasty things than (AFAIK) it ever did in Egypt. Your edit summary (haha) was not terribly informative, although very polite, so I was left wondering why you had taken it out, if indeed it wasn't some sort of accident. Palmiro | Talk 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Palmiro | Talk 21:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right that it was unsourced. It's something I am reasonably familiar with and felt amounted practically to common knowledge (but hey, maybe only in Syria). But as I am a strong proponent of the nuking of unsourced material I can't fault your action. I will go hunting for some sources as soon as I have managed to reduce my real-life workload to manageable proportions. Cheers, Palmiro | Talk 21:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I could prove it's good now, maybe not terrorist I could manage though... Palmiro | Talk 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When someone points out a link, you could try reading it before being a revert spazz. Extc

Image:Doug E Fresh Album.jpg

We can't begin to justify a claim of fair use unless the image is in use in an article... Please get it into an article, or restore the notice. .. Or tell me what I'm missing! --Gmaxwell 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk

Give me a few days - let me get in touch with the original crew who helped with the first splitting to see what they think, as they occasionally help out with maintenance of the pages and such. --HappyCamper 12:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikimodel.com modeling causality help wanted...

Hi Everyking et. al. who enjoy facilitating quality wiki work.

I have synthesized a wiki at http://www.wikimodel.com for modeling causality. I would greatly appreciate additions to the work in progress! Thank you --Dialectic 00:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]