User talk:Paul Erik/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RFA Thanks

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Paul Erik,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.

Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunatly this is not entirely my own design.

RFA Thanks!

Thanks for your participation for my RFA bid and for your support.--JForget 23:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Quil Ateara

Hi Paul, I just wanted to point out this discussion to you here, since we seem to have crossed paths on the same issue: [1]. Cheers! Into The Fray ^T/C 04:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Preposition capitalization

Hi, Paul Erik --

Thanks for you comment on my RfA. I clicked through to your page and was checking out some of your contributions. Thanks for your work on moving pages to dab standards and capitalization standards. I do have one comment though: "Think About Life to Think about Life ‎ (capitalization conventions: prepositions not capitalized)" Capitalization of prepositions often depends on the length of the prepositions. One rule-of-thumb is 4 or fewer letters, no cap, 5 or more letters, cap. See, for example, All About Eve. Since the band's site http://www.thinkaboutlife.org capitalizes the About in the page title, I'd be inclined to leave the article capitalized. (OTOH, their MySpace page uses all lowercase across the whole name, which would point up think about life as the proper title...) -- JHunterJ 12:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hunter. I appreciate you pointing that out to me. Somewhere along the way I picked up the idea that the usual cutoff for capitalizing a preposition was more than five letters (see my comment here) but you are correct.

As for your RfA, I was delighted to speak in support of you, seeing as I've seen you around a lot and have always been impressed. Thanks for all the great work you do here. --Paul Erik 16:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Television advertising using Feist's music

You want to consider sticking to the spirit of WP dogma rather than the letter. When the statement is about popularity tied to use in advertising, list & forum inquiries by the (determined) public are the only evidence you're likely to get without conducting your own poll. But that would be original research and just as "evil." --Belg4mit 21:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend to sound like a WikiLawyer when I made this edit. :) I can understand why it may have come across that way, though. Someone (not I) had placed a {{fact}} tag there—as I understood it, they were challenging the assertion that it was the use of the song in the advertisement which resulted in the song hitting the charts. A better way to go (better than what I did) would have been just to re-phrase it so that there was mention of the ad, a mention of the song climbing the charts, but not a mention of the first being the cause of the second. You're right; a strict following-the-letter of Wikipedia:No original research would say we should not connect the two unless that connection has been reported in a reliable source. Evil. :) Anyway, I see that someone eventually found a source.

This is a good example of a time when it would have been more helpful if I had left you a note rather than just reverting your edit; I'm happy to get that feedback. Cheers, --Paul Erik 01:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 05:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thanks, Archive 2! Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was a success, and I look forward to getting started! Hiberniantears 18:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Hello Paul,

We have been adding what we view are appropriate links to feature articles on bands/musicians wiki pages, and we received a warning from you. Our links appear to be no different from links to other sites - could you explain why other external links are okay, but ours are not? Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:63.200.184.68&redirect=no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.200.184.68 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied here. --Paul Erik 01:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.

If you appreciated the cancon, check my user page for info on when I dedicated a song on the R3-30 to Bearcat and a user who was saying the R3-30 wasn't a valid chart, by way of trying to get The Western Investor deleted ;-)

Remember, remember, the fifth of November? Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007. It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry

I am sorry about my Vandalism the real reason i did this is that i wanted to see how long it would take Wikipedia to fix vandalsim and make it into a video. I truly did not mean any harm. Namfl 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It didn't take long! Thanks for taking the time to apologize. --Paul Erik 20:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

lol, I saw this video. NHRHS2010 talk 13:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I am a YouTube star. Thanks for pointing it out; that was hilarious. --Paul Erik 20:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. I've blocked the IP for 2 days. GlassCobra 05:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. --Paul Erik 05:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the fair use rationale

Thank you, Paul, for adding the fair use rationale for the pic RyanDan.jpg. Thank you very much! Siurekrek 08:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

James Strauss

Thanks for clarifying, I did cut and paste because I needed to move a page (uncontroversial) but didn't find a move button (as i understand now it is because I'm a new user). I will correct the problem and paste the old article back as soon as I can move it (in four days?), unless you could do it for me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nu chto (talk • contribs) 05:50, 17 November 2007

Okay, I undid your cut-and-paste move, and added a hatnote dab to James Strauss for your new page, James Strauss (flutist). --Paul Erik (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding external links

You wrote on my talk page:

Are you affiliated with the website petenema.com? Your contribution history suggests that you might be here to spam Wikipedia with external links rather than contributing to building the encyclopedia. Let me know if I have misunderstood, but for the time being I have reverted your additions. --Paul Erik (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul, Yes I am affiliated with petenema.com. My intention wasn't to spam, but to provide links to photos and reviews of the bands people are interested in, which is sometimes what I'm looking for when I visit here (to prepare for a show, or learn about what a band is like in concert). If this is considered external link spam, then I will stop. I now see a similar discussion above, and your response that points to the "conflict of interest" page, which I guess applies to me. My intention was basic... provide some reference to allow people to see what a band is like in concert, but if this is not considered useful content, then it can be removed and I'll stop.

User_talk:69.158.146.61

Hi user. I see that you had good intentions and I thank you for your message. I was not meaning to pass judgment on how useful the links are; what I was taking issue with was indeed the potential conflict of interest. I think it is probably best to follow the COI guidelines and to mention the links on the Talk page of articles if you think they may be useful, and then let other users add them if they agree. Cheers, --Paul Erik (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Iam humbly sorry for creating a mess on the pages i was just lost and got mad so i typed in crap i will not do it again and keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.53.105 (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. If I can help you when you're lost, just leave me another message! :) --Paul Erik (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Glen Phillips

Unfortunately the bio as it stands only allows for one Glen Phillips. The author feels that he has equal rights to utilise the name on open source, and has wanted to do so for some time.

Proposed equitable and diplomatic solution: insertion of a middle initial with the bio page directing users to either the writer or the musician.

Glen_Phillips page as it stands is equally available to either individual, as long as the information is based on fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenaphillips (talk • contribs) 05:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Responded at your Talk page. --Paul Erik (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

William Beckett (1784-1863)

Hi, while names with dates are not the approved style, I created this page earlier today because this was the form of name established (by other editors) and used on 3 pages already. In changing it, did you do a "What links here" on the redlinked form? By all means rename the page to WB (politician) or (MP), but please change the existing links if you do so. PamD (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll change it myself to (MP), as that's already used in 2 redlinks! PamD (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for that. I had completely forgotten to check the "What links here". --Paul Erik (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

HI!!

WHATS THE THING YOU SEND TO ME? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhayee (talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded here. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

hi again!

o... thanks......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhayee (talk • contribs) 05:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to article for deletion / Jerry Fielden

Hello Paul. You will find the band AraPacis at amazon.com, not amazon.ca - you will also find it on iTunes as well as in many specialized in female-fronted metal bands sites such as the biggest of them all, CD distributor Sonic Cathedral, and many forums devoted to female-fronted metal bands. There is a whole list of referenced reviews and articles at http://www.arapacis.com/reviews.htm . If you google "Jerry Fielden", you will find many third-party sources. "Jerry Fielden" is also on the list of Godin guitar endorsees at http://www.godinguitars.com/endorsees.htm and on Miranie Morissette's page at www.miraniemorissette.net or at http://www.myspace.com/miraniemorissette . If you have any suggestions for help for me on COI problems, I will gladly listen to them and take action to comply. Cheers.

Slugguitar (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slugguitar and thanks for your note. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is pretty clear about how problematic it can be to write and edit articles about yourself, your band, or any person or organization to whom you have a close connection. I think most Wikipedia editors would say that it is best to avoid it altogether; at the very least it can have the appearance of interfering with Wikipedia's goal of producing a neutral encyclopedia. See also Wikipedia:Autobiography#The problem with autobiographies. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nu-funk

I see you have removed the PROD tag. Thank you for informing me of the reason for removal. However, due to this article not really being notable enough I am in the process of an AfD nomination and you are invited to comment. Thundermaster^TRUC 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 08:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Canadian music

Hi Paul. Thanks for the kind words. Likewise, I see your name in the edit histories of many of the articles I edit; it seems we're into some of the same music. It's nice to see some action in the Canadian music wikiproject. Cheers. Strobilus (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nu-funk

The page already exsists at this link! Responses on my talk page (if any). Thundermaster^TRUC 08:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC) I stumbled upon it when I was looking for nu-funk bands.

Good find! This gives us another option. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I only found one band and this article. Thundermaster^TRUC 11:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to keep searching for some proper sources over the next couple of days. Cheers, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a merge. What do you think? Thundermaster^TRUC 11:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a merge was the other option I was thinking of. But first give me a couple of days to do some searching to see if anything confirms that these are interchangeable terms, or if they are written about as separate music genres. Thanks! --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with the search! Thundermaster^TRUC 11:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism only account blocked

Thank you for the heads-up [2] on this issue. The account in question has been indefinately blocked [3] as a vandalism-only account. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Crepuscule

I think the concern over this redirect is that "crepuscule" is a fairly common English word (borrowed from French) meaning "twilight," and there appear to be numerous books, songs, companies, etc. that share that name. It should probably either be a translated version of the French page ([4]) with a "crepuscule in popular culture" section or a disambiguation page. --Hyperbole (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can understand it being a disambiguation page, but it does not have to be deleted to have that happen. I'll go ahead and remove the prod, and begin the disambiguation. Thanks for your thoughts on this. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Crepuscule.

Sorry I did not answer earlier. Moreover, I think that your choice to make Crepuscule a disambiguation page is a correct one - Skysmith (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your response! --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi there! Just a quick note to say "thanks very much" for your support on my recent, successful RfA. I'm humbled by the support I received, and will do my best to use the tools with care and for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Enochian Theory AfD

Hi Paul

My name is Ben and I the custodian of the Enochian Theory wikipedia page.

I have amended the wiki page so the magazines refernces in the bands article are internally linked to their own wiki page, which all but one have. In the case of the one that does not have its own page I have entere an external link to magazines website, back issue section where you can clearly see the bands name on the cover.

I hope this in some way clears up the triviality of the bands magazine appearances.

Please contact me should you wish to discuss the article further as I am desperate for this page to stay and see no reason why it should not.

Many thanks

Mr B Bond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr B Bond (talk • contribs) 09:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed in the talk section for the Enochian Theory article that it was thought that I also update the bands offical webpage. I do not. The Ben updating the bands official webpage is Ben Harris Hayes, the singer.

I have only updated this wiki page.

Hope that clears it up.

many thanks

Mr Ben Bond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr B Bond (talk • contribs) 11:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for jumping to conclusions. I struck through my comment at the AfD discussion. Do you have any affiliation with the band? --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Officially no. I am not part of the band, its record or promotions company. I am the singers cousin however.

We see each other maybe once or twice a year as we live other sides of u.k and only really speak via e-mail and text.

I have no vested interest in the band other than that I like them and have a family member among their ranks.

Any references or updates that I have added have been truthful, accurate and purely from the perspective of giving the band some kind of biographical history and knowledgable resource, should (knock on wood) 2008 deliver everything its promising for them.

I came across the article quite by chance, but took it upon myself to try and give it some structure. Whoever had started the page had simply cut and pasted the bands bio from their webpage. Its possible that it was done by the SAN promotional company the band used for about six months at the start of 2007.

I would like to say, as I have on all my previous posts, that it is only my intention to present an accurate and informative article for this band. I will happily take any advice or constructive criticism that anyone is willing to give, if it makes the article both acceptable in the eyes of the editors, and in line with any policy wiki has with regards to its content.

I have no hidden aganda with this. I have simply invested my own time bringing it all together and do not wish to see it deleted because my own computing inadequacies (not to mention spelling,LOL).

If you have any advice on how I can better source my references and represent them on the page, particularly the magazine articles (which seems a bone of contention amongst the editors), please can you let me know.

Again, thanks for your help and consideration.

Many thanks

Mr B Bond (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so up front about how you might have a potential conflict of interest. I am not going to give you a hard time at this point about the policy, but you can read more if you wish, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. As for how the references are formatted, I think they are fine currently for the purposes of the AfD discussion but if the article survives, you could follow one of the styles at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Cheers, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello.

I have attempted to make the magazine references at the bottom of the article better by adding publisher information and ISSN numbers where I have been able to find them. I should have the last bits of information I need by the end of today and will add these to the reference section.

I believe that an editor as well as another third party has also tinkered with the text in the article to source some of the qoutes ot their appropriate external link.

I still worry that this may not be enough to satisfy the 'notability' point.

I appreciate that some of the people who will ultimately make the decision with regards to the articles fate, may live in another country, not be familiar with magazines/music channels cited etc, but I've done as much as I can with what I have.

The band won't have any more media coverage to add, until they have their new single recorded and ready to release. I can only provide more internet links as further references, and there seems to be some difference of opinion with regards to some of their suitability.

Regardless of the outcome of the decision made on this article, I would like to thank you for your input and advice on this matter.

Many thanks

Mr B Bond (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

MS and Abtract

Re: this note. Thanks, sincerely. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Spies is fusion? hmmm....

learn something new every day. Thanks for putting that up there and updating the genre on the disambiguation page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchandra (talk • contribs) 19:50, 23 December 2007

My pleasure. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sea legs

The information I removed was redundant as it was already a dot point in the music section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchdawg (talk • contribs) 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for pointing that out. I had not looked over the list carefully enough. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mark Carney

No problem. I'll source the material to the National Post, which says the same thing as the material you deleted. I already pointed this out in the talk section. I'll reinsert the material and source it to the National Post DSatYVR (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Western Investor

Finally heard it today...should I worry that I've set a whole new standard in original research given Craig's admission that he used our article to compile the year-end #1s show? (*grin*) Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

CSD

Thanks for informing me, I'll check WP:cSD more thouroghly next time I place a tag. Thundermaster^TRUC 17:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tale of Sweeney Todd

Hello. You added comments from reviews of this film to the article I wrote but didn't provide substantial references for them. Where did you find these reviews? The links you provided did not lead to anything online. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi MovieMadness. That was a great article you wrote, by the way. I decided to add to the "Critical reception" section, and found those reviews through my university's database (ProQuest). In what way did you find them to be unsubstantiated? I provided the names of the authors, titles, newspaper names, dates and page numbers. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression a link had to lead to an online article to prove it actually exists, since anyone could provide names of authors of alleged articles and the newspaper names, dates, and page numbers where they supposedly can be found when in fact there's no such article. Am I wrong? I found an online quote from the Los Angeles Times review you cited so I used its URL as the reference. Oddly, you referenced a review in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch but didn't quote from it in the article. Is that a usual procedure? (I'm fairly new at this and still learning the ropes.) By the way, if you're interested in seeing The Tale of Sweeney Todd, ION Television is broadcasting it tonight at 9:00pm Eastern time. MovieMadness (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no worries—it wasn't all that long ago that I was new myself. It's always nice to provide a link when possible, but if Wikipedia were limited to referencing only what was available online, Wikipedia would be a whole lot smaller; we might not have a referenced article like Ancient Egyptian religion. I supposed it is possible that people may plant false information using false references, but most of the time I think it's obvious when they try that. Plus there's a WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, helping to check on things like that. I didn't quote directly from the review in the Post-Dispatch (which I included as an example of a critic who was pleased by the casting but not much else) because I found it hard to pick out a short representative quote. Thanks for letting me know about the broadcast, but unfortunately I don't get that network in my part of the world. :( Enjoy, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Another article I edited yesterday was Rear Window. I found a website [5] that quoted quite a lot of reviews of the film, but hesitated to use some of them because I couldn't verify their accuracy. Is referencing the site where I found them sufficient proof they exist?

Re: The Tale of Sweeney Todd, you didn't miss much. Even without comparing it to the Sondheim musical, I found it to be tedious and the plot riddled with inconsistencies and a highly implausible explanation for Todd's madness. Do you mind my asking in what part of the world you're located? Thanks again for your help. MovieMadness (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

O Canada. I think you're right to be cautious about using that website as a source of material for Rear Window (1998 film). I am a fan of WP:NPOV and if you use a site like that, you're running a big risk in overrepresenting positive views of the subject; in other words, giving the positive reviews undue weight. I would say that that would be more the issue than the issue of accuracy.

I see that you have added a plot synopsis to the TV movie article. My compliments to you again on your work. Cheers, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sweeney Todd (disambiguation)

Hello, Paul! Thanks for bringing Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) to my attention. I had made my edits based on other disambiguation pages I've seen which follow the format I used when I made the changes. I think the redundancy of entries like "Sweeney Todd (musical) - a musical by Stephen Sondheim" and "Sweeney Todd (2007 film) - a 2007 film" doesn't make much sense and looks sloppy, but I'm not enough of a veteran Wikipedian to debate the point. You can certainly revert the entry if you wish. Thanks again for your message. MovieMadness (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

David Baerwald entry

Hi, Paul,

I'd really prefer that my entry remain as close to blank as possible on this site. I hope you understand, or if not understand, at least respect my desire.

Yrs,

David Baerwald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.29.113 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If contributors add reliably sourced content to it, then removing it would be contrary to Wikipedia's policies. If you have any concerns about the article, you should probably follow the instructions at WP:BLP#Dealing with articles about yourself since I am a mere editor. In the meantime, is there anything in particular that you would like kept out of your article? Anything that is poorly sourced can be removed; I could help with that. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well

I would simply prefer that I not be mentioned at all. Surely that should be my right as a private citizen. It's not as though I'm a politician or a public figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.29.113 (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, anything with respect to a right to be removed from Wikipedia you would have to take up with someone higher up: WP:BLP#Dealing with articles about yourself. But might there be some advantages to being here? An article here could provide more reliable information potentially than what is written about you at this fan site, at puremusic.com, at imdb, at VH1, and so on. You might not see yourself as a public figure but you do have a profile on the web. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Paul

Yeah, but wouldn't that then just be me spinning some self-aggrandizing hoohaw? It just seems like there would be an instantaneous battle between my self-aggrandizing hoohaw, and the malevolent spin of other people's self-aggrandizing hoohaw. Much better to just leave the record blank than all that. But let me think about that. I hate indulging in competitive auto-biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.29.113 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoohaw, my least favourite kind of haw. :) The guideline Wikipedia:Autobiography suggests that you not write it anyway but leave it to others to add or alter the content. You could make comments on the Talk page, though, or alert me here if there is something of a malevolent spin that appears. To be completely up front I think there may not actually be a way of keeping your biography blank that would adhere to policy here. If there is, it would be at a Wikimedia Foundation level; they would need to verify that you are who you say you are. Not that I'm doubting. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

HooHaw

Hoo, I've found, is the most toxic element of hoohaw, and among the most common. The thing is, one doesnt need to lie necessarily to be slanderous. Or lied about to feel insulted and wronged. Assuming I'm not entirely paranoid, and that I do have a person who seems committed to spinning my meager biography to his own purposes, I'm presented with three choices.
A: Respond angrily with huffy protestations of my importance;
B: Request that my name be closed to discussion without biography at all;
or C: Get somebody else to do the tedious work of gathering sourced material, putting it together coherently, creating weblinks, etc, etc... (all while fluffing my fragile ego)

But "A" is out of the question because it's simply not something I can imagine doing, and "B" is out, because it's against wiki rules (See also "A")... So in other words, you're saying I'm left with "C", and that I need to hire or somehow convince a critic or student or publicist or whatnot to act as my biographical bodyguard, and engage soberly and unemotionally in longstanding and complicated controversies with at least putatively anonymous foes. I can't imagine who I could ask to take that on, without substantial payment.

Does this seem fair to you that my only choice is the complicated and expensive "C"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.29.113 (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That does not seem fair at all, so let me propose option "D": I'll have a go at writing the biography from scratch, making sure that everything is actually verified to a reliable source such as a newspaper. That should help prevent negative spin from creeping in. As an example of a short bio I wrote from scratch, have a look at Owsley (musician). As you can see, the content is all cited to reliable sources. Now I keep watch over the article, and if another editor were to insert some random assertion, such as a statement that Ben Folds co-wrote songs on Owsley's album, I would remove it because it was not attributed to a reliable source. Our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says to immediately remove any controversial material that is not appropriately cited. We volunteer editors at Wikipedia hope we are not neglecting that duty too often. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well

That's a very generous offer, and very kind of you, but let's just leave it blank for as long as possible. I feel the less said the better, unless we go all the way with it, which would be more demanding than I could expect of you, a stranger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.33.38 (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

wow... respect

hi there, im the one who placed the missing reference thing on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28trademarks%29) yesterday.

i never thought anyone would handle this in such a friendly way, cool :) i had to smile a bit at your text.. anyway, that was not a test - i had to do it to help myself with the frustration i got when i read that page. i am truly sorry to cause trouble for nothing... that was just a mood. sorry.

keep up your work, you seem to be quite a contributer here :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.129.21 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, WP:AGF, as they say... Thanks for your message. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing Under the Influence

Hi there. I will hold up my hand and confess to deleting this, yes. It was nominated for deletion in the customary wayas being, in essence, a failed attempt at humour, with which evaluation I agreed with. But I have no draconian instincts, and am perfectly happy to restore the article and see what other people feel about it. I will do so forthwith. Happy wikying. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I will, of course, now leave the article alone to see what happens. As to the CSD criteria, and whether they apply or not, I think that it depends on your definition of "nonsense", which I think this qualifies as but I guess you do not. But it's no big deal, and waiting for consensus is fine by me. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Peterson

i was wondering if you could guide me to the mos indicating the deprecation of b. as an abbreviation for born. --emerson7 17:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

--emerson7 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul-Erik, re Bob Rae quote -- I was there, and I wrote it down. But it is also available on the CBC Radio 2 download of the "Simply the Best" memorial -- it would be great if you went there and double-checked me. As I recall, each segment is a separate download. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Canadian-American

Hey there Tom. Did you truly intend to call this vandalism? Just sayin'. Happy editing, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--Tom 14:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)ps, Hi Paul, I just saw your reply at the article talk page and will try to add that material into the article. Duel nationality folks can be tricky but it should be noted. Not trying to be a prick or anti Canadian, Canada is an awesome place, imho :) Cheers, --Tom 14:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added the duel nationality to the article and the source you provided. Did I correctly link the Canadian part? I have edited very few if any Canadian bios. Please correct my mistakes, TIA --Tom 16:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. I think linking to the article Canadian-American makes the most sense in this context. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: AFD setups

Thanks for the info, and the link to the correct instructions. I didn't mean to be so sloppy in setting up my afd's, but thanks for the corrections you did. Gwynand (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I knew you were not being deliberately sloppy. :) Best, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mersereau's List

I was going to post this as a further comment on the discussion page but I thought that maybe it was too lenghty and perhaps would be better posted here. Note that it was written to be a continuation of my last comment there but I've just cut and pasted it here instead. --- Here are a few more comments for consideration. I mentioned above that I was concerned about finding substantive reviews of the book. The Rodriquez review is actually much better than I had remembered and does in fact give a good analysis of what wrong with Mersereau’s methodology, at least from the perspective of Quebec artists, and it is the only one I’ve found that goes into anywhere near as much detail. A number of others make much vaguer comments. I’m not sure why so many have chosen to soft pedal their criticisms, or to say nothing at all about the book, but perhaps it has to do with the fact that Mersereau is a fellow journalist, or that he works for the CBC, but again that question is not part of this piece. The National Post review, for example, only talked of “glaring omissions” without getting into the research methodology that produced those omissions. (Note, however, that it mentioned Mass Romantic as one of the glaring omissions. This is the album I had noted in my first criticisms section that has recently been selected by Blender Magazine as the 2nd best Canadian indie album of all time and the 24th best of all time in the world. The fact that it didn’t even make the top 100 on this list is one of the most obvious signs that this list is outrageously biased, and it is one that will jump out at most people who are reasonably familiar with the Canadian music scene as it did for Medley, although there are many obvious signs.)

From other reviewers you’ll find many that give only descriptions of the book, or comments like “now is the right time for Canadian list”, a comment that says nothing about the validity of this list, deliberately I suspect, and you’ll find comments like the one in the introduction to this piece that say that “Mersereau surveyed experts from all parts of Canada”. This is a misleading statement and one that in this piece I think should be considered as a biased statement, because while it is technically true it is meant to be misleading. It is meant to give an impression of fairness, that all parts of the country have been fairly represented, but this is not at all true as Rodriquez clearly showed. The fact that at least one person from every region was allowed to vote does not mean that that region was fairly represented.

And just to wrap up, I’ll note again that this list is not consistent with any other reputable list. Here is a link to the prestigious Pazz and Jop lists as another example. http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/pnj/index.php Look at the albums from the 2000s, for example, and see which Canadian albums are on Mersereau’s list and which ones aren’t, and where the artists in each group are from. I can list them for you if you’d like. Again you will see the extreme regional bias of Mersereau’s list. Including this information in the Criticism section would constitute original research, however, so Rodriquez’s fair and thorough piece will have to do, at least for now, to give a fair assessment of Mersereau’s research methodology, and his list overall.BigRockFan (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that, as well as your comment on the Talk page; it does go a long way in addressing my concern about WP:NPOV for the article. I'll have a look around for reviews and other commentary too and see if there's anything else I could add to the section on critical reception. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Alexisonfire

I know Alexisonfire are from Canada. I'm writing a research paper on why younger students should be allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. I was trying to present both sides of the arguement. So I changed it because I didn't want to lie in the paper. :( Sorry, I knew someone would fix it.

I decided to test how easy it was. I went onto the article for a band called Alexisonfire. They hail from St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada. With just three clicks and a little typing, I changed it to Saint Petersburg, Russia. Any unwary onlooker would see that and believe that they area Russian band, when in fact they are Canadian. Seeing as I am one person out of billions, you can see how this may get out of hand. Alas, within three minutes and administrator from Wikipedia had already fixed the page back to normal.

:( forgive me . :) have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.241.225 (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings. I'll put a welcome message on your Talk page. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)