Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:26, 25 April 2012

Archives

1, 2

"The" versus "the" when directly quoting a source.

Doc, great series of edits on The Beatles article, it is greatly improved due to your efforts. I had a question about this edit however, specifically, changing "the Beatles" to "The Beatles" when the source Wiki is quoting (Harry, 2002, p.753) uses "the Beatles". Shouldn't we be accurate to the source, or brackets should be used to indicate we are changing the case of the "t"? Please, correct me if I am wrong.

P.S., If I have an en dash on my keboard where would it be? Thanks, cheers! — GabeMc (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, for the speedy reply, and the advice on finding the en dash. I will defer to you and Tony in this instance, it does make logical sense to me. Thanks for your time, cheers! — GabeMc (talk)

The King

Hi. I've restored the most important parts of what I'd done to Elvis Presley. I'd seen the discussion at TFA/R and should point out to you that Sandy doesn't know what she's talking about. I scrunched the whitespace as a sop to poor ways of thinking about article load time and edibility. The result was 'smaller'. Alarbus (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing question

Hey Doc, hope you are having a great holiday season. I have a question I think you can answer. I bought a first edition copy of: The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono, so I could replace the pageless Sheff 1981 cites in the John Lennon article, as the link appears to be dead now anyway. Here's the question, the book is actually copyrighted to Playboy, not Sheff, and the Library of Congress page at the front of the book actually lists Lennon as the 1st author. Further, while Sheff conducted the interviews, the book was edited by G. Berry Golson. So how should this be cited to, since the interviews were conducted by Sheff, the book was edited by Golson and authored by Lennon? Also, if Lennon is an author, why would Yoko not also be an author?

As of now, the ref section reads like this: Sheff, David; Lennon, John; Ono, Yoko. In: Golson, G. Berry. The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono. Playboy; 1981. ISBN 978-0-87223-705-2. But as I said, this does not seem to be accurate. How should the cites look? Thanks, Happy New Year, cheers! — GabeMc (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My edits on The Clash

First of all, I am not whining, despite what you may think. It is valid to complain about reverting an entire edit when there are some improvements in it. It may not be your intention, but you are coming off to me as "snotty" right now. I am sorry if this is not your intent, but I would appreciate it if you spoke to me kindly, because all you want to do is complain about me and/or my edits... --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Well done sir! You have had quite a day for the Presley TFA! Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of the United States

OK, if you insist that both NYC and LA images have the same aspect size (which I think is unwarranted for the simple reason that the NYC skyline is so much bigger and more sprawling), then will you please replace the current NYC image with something more visually appealing? I am quite unhappy that you are insisting or even just OK with leaving a poor quality image for NYC while the L.A. image is appropriately beautiful, just on the basis of an illogical size consideration. I believe that my choice actually made sense. And kindly change the moniker back to New York "City" from "New York", whose primary Wikilink is actually to the New York State article. Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U

The discussion has been opened and can be found at WP:Requests for comment/DocKino Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, DocKino. I will have a read over it this evening. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

re: Jaws

I figured as much. Keep up the good work! Blake Burba (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary is downright sleek--nice job. Blake Burba (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No hyphen between "pneumatically" and "powered"? (just a query--I defer to your judgment...) Blake Burba (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything you need to finish the Jaws copyedit before I nominate it for the FA again? igordebraga ≠ 21:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Lots of credit for getting your hands dirty on the Jaws article. The JPS 22:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks a lot for all your help! Is the Legacy section the only part remaining? (was willing to nominate it later today, Dec 30...) 02:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I did most of the latest comments, can you take a look to see what else can be done? igordebraga ≠ 14:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

United States

You can't undo something with adequate references just because you disagree with it. The truth is truth as sad as it is... and I would at the very least like more of an explanation then "misguided". I would like to avoid some crazy edit war so lets talk. You show me yours and I'll show you mine, figuratively speaking of course ;) Cloudblazer (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

There should really be a puppy option too.

Cadiomals (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive: {{Puppy}}! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

Revert good faith photo addition. The narrative is in the middle of his life here--a memorial is out of place. - Hi Kal, it means exactly the middle of his life - look at the Foto: 1958 - 1960 - and with the Ray Barracks in Friedberg exactly a station of his life. :)--Neptuul (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

SMcCandlish has given you a puppy! Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

Kinda made my day. It's barely past noon for me, and it's already been a long and lame one. Aside from your back-pat. :-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

February 8

Barnstars!

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For all your work in Jaws (film), which now reads better than ever! You may even add yourself as a co-nominator if you want so! igordebraga ≠ 01:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ramones

Hi Dockino,

Re your comment in reverting edits on the Ramones page as follows:-

'Revert. Sorry, but we are not allowing the Influence section to be turned into a sloppy trivia bank.'

Some comments:-

1) When you say we, could you please clarify who it is that you are speaking for on top of yourself? I don't see on there that anyone has stated that they are giving you authority to speak for them

2) Please bear in mind that wikipedia guidlelines state that wikpedia pages are not owned by individuals. Thus you do not own the Ramones page. Agreement on edits on pages in wikipedia are based on consensus rather than one person looking to steamroller there views when there are others making up a majority alternative opinion. There are others who agree that the influence sections needs a tidy up. The tidied up edit I have added is more structured as opposed to the previous version which has no apparent line of structure and just looks amateur and messy.

3) Please refrain from edit warring. As mentioned above, individuals do not own wikipedia pages. Please work with others in a constructive manner rather than edit warring with abrupt, point of view comments that often give no indication of any wikipedia guidelines supporting the view point.

Thank you for any constructive and consensusly agreed work you can bring to wikipedia.

Socheid (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dockino,

This is an attempt at humour on your part surely? The only person who has objected to this change is you. As well as me, there is another person if you go through the hist who has agreed that this section of this page needs to be improved.

The reasons you have given for reverting these edits have been only your point of view and there has been no wikepedia guidelines brought to the table to support your view. At the moment this appears that you think that you own this page and have the right do on here as you wish. Misplaced Pages states that individuals do not own pages. The reasons put forward by you against the edits I made are poor. The reponse you have given above appears aloof, self important and does not demonstrate any sort of desire or inclination to try to work together with others.

Again, please do not edit war. Socheid (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

PS Please see the update above by IllaZilla (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC), stating that the influences section needs a tidy up.

Hi Dockino,

Interesting reply. So let me get this right. If someone makes an edit, its OK for you to undo it. If someone else undoes your edits, its edit warring?

You may well have some stars added to your history. You also have on there a list of complaints regarding your uncollaborative and dogmatic challenging of other people's work. Further your response above supports the previous comment I added above, namely that your edits are self important and aloof and not geared towards collaborative working. To repeat again, wikipedia guidelines state that no one owns wikipedia pages. You are the only person who has challenged this edit so far despite it being on almost 200 watch lists. Further to repeat again, there has been a comment stating that the influences section needs a tidy up. This means that at present your view is against the consensus so far stated.

I have asked you before and this has been ignored. Please let me ask again. Can you please explain with detail why exactly the edits made are non beneficial? You clearly have a high regard for your abilities, could you please demonstrate how good they are by giving a detailed explanation of why the edit in question is devalueing the section in the article? As stated above, the only change that has been made is to break the content down into three structured sub sections. All of the content and references are exactly as before. However the proposed changes takes away the rambling non structured format, to some degree at least. Regardless of how many stars you have or anything else, you do have any higher authority to allow you to over ride the opinions of others when your view is the minority opinion. Do you honestly believe that you are perfect and nothing you do can be improved upon?

Also could you please explain why my actions have nothing to do with the input of illazilla? Illazilla made a constructive suggestion that one of the sub sections was too small. I have acted upon that and merged a couple of sections together. Its called collaborative working.

Could you please answer the previous question I also asked, namely when you said 'we' in one of your previous talk page updates, who are you speaking for please?

Your repeated undoing of the changes I have attempted to constructively apply with what is currently majority backing represents edit warring on your part.

Socheid (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you don't know me ...

I've spent quite a while looking through the comments at your RfC/U, and the diffs, and so on, and as I've never interacted with you personally (and also as I just think it's better) I've decided to talk to you here rather than leave or endorse any comments over there. I hope that's OK with you.

I can easily understand the problems that Real Life can cause us, and how it can spill over into WikiLand despite our best intentions. I've found the reverse to be true, as well: WikiStress can affect our ability to deal at our best in Real Life. It can get to be a vicious circle, sometimes. I personally have some health issues (waiting for surgery) which mean I'm in almost constant pain (and regular morphine!) neither of which is really conducive to maintaining a good mood or really thoughtful editing. I'm also full-time carer for a frail, elderly parent with advanced dementia. So, I really do understand what Real Life issues can do to us. I had a really nasty spat on Wikpedia back in December, which I found quite horribly stressful (I almost quit altogether), so I can also appreciate the stress of having the RfC/U going on. You have my sympathy, on both fronts. I'm also an HFA, which can occasionally complicate matters; My interactions with other people don't always go the way I expected!

I wrote an essay on civility, from my own experiences, which I think you might possibly find helpful to read. (Of course, I could be wrong.) You're possibly sick and tired of people talking to you about this subject, but please be assured that my intentions are good, and I mean you nothing but good. I apologise in advance if I'm out of line here; I just thought that maybe a few words from a completely uninvolved editor might help the situation. All the best, Pesky (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Project Punk Newsletter: February 2012 (Volume III, Issue I)

Delivered by In actu (Guerillero) on behalf of WikiProject Punk. You are receiving this because your user name is listed in Category:WikiProject Punk music members or on our participants list. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile, remove the category from your profile, and/or move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list. Thanks.

 I thought you might be somewhat interested in this 16:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U

Just FYI: I've started the clock on closing the RfC/U about you. There is a request that you respond to one point, but that will not hold it from closing. Thanks, Hasteur (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring at The Beatles

Did you at least give it a chance? I really think it makes more sense and flows/reads better. — GabeMc (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Can you at least give me some reasons why you disagree? I'm sure we could find a middle ground. — GabeMc (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nicely put

I don't normally comment on people's edit summaries but I did enjoy the one that accompanied this... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Current/Past Members of the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think I found a good solution to the template issue, take a look at the proposal now, it might satisfy everyone's concerns. — GabeMc (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits at The Beatles

Hope you had a great wiki holiday but its good to have you back Doc! I had a couple of questions about your recent series of edits at the Beatles.

1) Here: I changed this because in the OS, there are no spaces between the words and the dash, can we alter the punctuation of the OS without a ?

2) As far as this quote swap: a) Lewisohn is a better source than Norman, who is a better source than Gladwell, b) the Lewisohn quote is more succint, c) we need to add back Gladwell as a source, as I removed the lower-quality sources used for only a cite or two in the article in favor of the more common and higher quality ones used through out. This trimming of obscure, sometimes out-of-print lower quality sources helped me reduce the overall size of the article by more than 13%. Thus, the article is more verifiable to the average editor/reader now that these older, hard to find, lower-quality sources are not relied upon to source basic information the primary sources already address, d) there is already a topical article on this subject, so the detail need not be more than the shorter Lewisohn quote IMO.

3) Here I agree with trimming the "bus incident" details, there is a topical article dedicated to this era as you pointed out, but as far as changing "the" to "The" in the name chronology, well, I am not aware of any consensus to override our sources, and Lewisohn uses "the" throughout.

4) a) You can't do this much in one edit, b) I think you need to build a consensus for this diff anyway, as no one else disliked the edited version as it was TMK, which was better sourced, more succinct and more accurate, c) you introduced numerous errors, you would need to add back the many obscure, out-of-print, and poor quality sources, and d) you can't use rollback for anything but vandalism, and that's essentially what this diff is, a rollback. — GabeMc (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

5) Here, why is an Academy Award not notable enough for the lead when grammys and Ivors are? To a US citizen an Oscar is better than five grammys at least, if not ten. I added it back. — GabeMc (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)