Welcome to Wikipedia!!! edit
|
A tip edit
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Here's a tip on adding internal links to articles. We only want to link terms that are relevant to the article, not every possible word. If there are too many unnecessary links it makes it harder for a reader to spot those that are truly-related to their article of interest. (An exception are full dates, which we link to allow users to set date preferences). There's more on it in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links. Anyway, keep up the good work. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 07:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thanks! edit
I just wanted to thank you for your helpful cleanup of the Whoopi Goldberg article. I've become accustomed to simply protecting the article from vandalism. It was nice to see somene making constructive edits to actually improve the article's quality. Have a good day, — coelacan talk — 05:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're invited to comment at Talk:Whoopi Goldberg#NPOV tag and oversee the upcoming changes to the article, if you're interested. I know you're still fairly new but your input is still welcome. — coelacan talk — 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Your edits to I'm So Young edit
Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for adding all those wikilinks to I'm So Young. I am wondering, though, why you deleted the album information, See Also subsection, and the categories from that article. In general, "blanking" useful information is frowned on in Wikipedia, especially since you didn't give any sort of explanation on the talk page or in your edit summary. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and re-add some of the information that's accurate. -sthomson06 (Talk) 20:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Why I edited some of the album information edit
Hi, sthomson06, I hope that this information gets to you. I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia, and I have a lot to learn. If I edited something out that you considered important, then I apologize. Believe me, it wasn't vandalism. I am very much against vandals and vandalism. In fact, I have edited out many a sentence that has been the obvious work of vandals.
With that said, after I got your message, I looked at the "history" section about the article on I'm So Young. I hadn't remembered editing it until your note. Anyway, I looked at the "history" section pertaining to "I'm So Young" and I can tell you the reason that I deleted that information about the Beach Boys. Now, don't take this the wrong way. I'm a fan of the Beach Boys; I have some albums of their music that I listen to often.
The problem, as I saw it, was that "I'm So Young" is really a "Students" song, just as "Help Me, Rhonda" is associated with the Beach Boys, and no matter who else records it, it will always "belong" (figuratively), to the Beach Boys. For example, in 1979, Johnny Rivers had "Help Me, Rhonda" on the charts (it didn't chart too high, I might add). But my point is that even if Johnny Rivers' version of "Help Me, Rhonda" hit number one on the charts, the song would still always be thought of as a Beach Boys song.
In my opinion, the same thing goes for The Students version, the most well-known version of the song "I'm So Young." I feel that the fact that the Beach Boys had a version of it on an album is trivial information, and thus is not that worthy of such long mention (especially since it's such a short article.) In other words, percentage-wise, in such a short article, the Beach Boys get a lot of mention for a song that is really a "Students" song. So many categories on the bottom of the page: Songs by the Beach Boys, and other links to Beach Boys articles. I just thought that it was irrelevent, being that "I'm So Young" is not normally associated with the Beach Boys. The Beach Boys have multitudes of songs that are associated with them no matter who else records the same songs, but "I'm So Young" is not one of them. Therefore, I thought that it wasn't appropriate to have all of those Beach Boys links on the bottom of a page that was about the song and the singers that made it well-known. ("I'm So Young" and The Students, respectively.
I hope that there was no hard feelings. That was just the way that I felt.
Sincerely, Slater79 23:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
re: Charley Pride edit
Hi, Slater79, how are you? I assessed the Charley Pride article as part of a project that is going on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Assessment Drive in conjunction at the Biography Wikiproject. Confused yet? :) Most articles belong to certain relevant Wikiprojects, such as fiction books are usually tagged as belonging to WP:NOVEL and people are usually tagged as belonging to the Biography Wikiproject. As you can see on the article's talk page, there's even one for country music. These projects are useful because they allow editors such as myself an outlet to explore articles relating to a subject that interests them, and see which of these articles may require work as far as wikifying, clean-up, and what-have-you, just like you're doing to Mr. Pride's article, which looks very good, by the way. Most Wikiprojects allow editors to assess articles, therefore tagging them for their importance and class (the letter grade you noticed). You can see the assessment scale for biographies at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment. You've probably seen articles tagged as Featured Articles (those that have stars in the upper right corner and are therefore eligible for showing on the main page) and Good Articles, and these are two of the highest assessments. What is important to remember that these assessments are fluid and they are subject to change because articles are constantly being edited and changed. Even Featured Articles can be "demoted" to a lower rank if their quality has slipped. Stub articles, the lowest of the low, can very much jump straight to B or even GA! It all depends on the article and whoever is willing to work on it.
As you can see, I assessed the Charley Pride article as a "B" because it is highly inclusive, well written, and has a number of relevant sources, but still requires some work, which I'm sure you're busy doing. :) The next step would be to work on the article to nominate it for GA status, so if that happens, the assessment will be changed to say GA rather than B. The only suggestion I would make for the article as of now would be to utilize inline citations rather than external links to indicate references. It makes it a lot easier to read, for one, and a lot of Good Articles usually have a number of these (I saw one the other day with 167 references -- jeez!).
So I hope this long summary helps in some what, and that I'm at least making sense. What it comes down to is that the article is definitely on the right track, and that the "B" assessment is technically the highest we can give without there being a "vote" -- ie, Good or Featured Article. Good luck, and if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. :) María (críticame) 13:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the difficulty you've been having logging in/editing Wikipedia lately. Hopefully everything is taken care of now. María (críticame) 12:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments on my talk page. edit
Thank you for the apology. I could tell that you'd had a bad experience there, I'm sorry that happened. I hope you've found the support you need to deal with those experiences. --Ahc 14:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Al Davidorf? edit
Sorry I am not a wikipedia member but I have a question for you. I apologize if this is not the correct forum to ask this question.
I found your page when I did an internet search on Bummy Davis. The reason I was doing a search on Bummy Davis is that last night I subscribed to a website called newspaperarchives.com. I found this site after doing a search on my surname, Davidorf, on Google in the News-Archives section. The reason I had subscribed to newspaperarchives.com is that I was surprised to discover that there were articles mentioning my surname dating back to the early 20th century, and I wanted to explore a bit. One item I discovered is that there was an article written by UP at the time of Bummy's death, which seemed to be widely distributed to many other periodicals, which listed Bummy Davis' real name as Al Davidorf.
Do you know if Bummy Davis' real surname was Davidorf as the article lists, or Davidoff as other sources suggest? Also, I can send you a copy of the articles if you'd like. I can be reached at rdavidorf@yahoo.com.
Frankie Valli article edit
I ran across the Frankie Valli article and saw a huge notice about copyright infringement that you placed on the page. I'm not challenging your claim, but I can't find a full explanation on the talk page. For the sake of clarity, can you state why it's plagiarism and name the original source of the text in the article? Thanks, Samvscat (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE: Nevermind, I found a resolution at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 March 19/Articles. User:Silver Spoon said, "This is no copyright violation. This site is a wikipedia clone. Everything we change here is shown there. The site now also has the Possible copyright infringement on top of the page. What this site lacks is a statement that says that the information shown is orriginaly from wikipedia." Given this information, I'll remove the notice. --Samvscat (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Frankie Valli article edit
Yeah that's the truth. There should be some kind of disclaimer on the site. I might be mistaken, but I think attribution is required in the Wikipedia terms of use, license, Creative Commons thing, whatever you want to call it. --Samvscat (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Elvis edit
Hi! Saw your additions in the "Also known as" section. I amended all this a while back, cos editors had lumped names he was generally known as with more obscure names he was billed as, just to get him publicity. I don't think Elvis was ever known as "the atomic-powered singer" - it was just something the Colonel dreamed up for the Vegas posters and it didn't catch on. I think we should stick to what he was known as ie. Elvis, The King, etc. Whaddya think? Rikstar (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, Slater79. Thanks so much for the reply. Not sure I can help with what you want to do: I'm pretty green about the stuff you want to do, but if I find anything to help you, I will. I'm still learning this wiki formatting and what-not, so it would be good for me, too. Good to know you're at least kinda interested in the article; means a lot to us who have been trying to improve it! Rikstar (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it was you that added a bunch of fact tags to Kiner's article back on July 19th. Several of those items are already covered in the external links. What's the point of linking the same information 2 or more times in the same article? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't have the best day on Friday, either. I apologize for excessive ripping. But remember that when you apply fact tags you're basically compelling someone else to do the work. And when I see fact tags that are already explained elsewhere, I get annoyed at the duplication of effort. Let's both be a little more careful in the future. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- The thing is, I get tired of people putting fact tags on things and expecting others to do the work. But I thought it was worthwhile to try to answer some of them, and when I discovered that several of them were already explained by the external links at the bottom of the page, or by other wikipedia articles already linked to, my reaction was similar to the way you reacted to my comments a bit ago. Let's both try to be more careful in the future. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The request was removed, as it was moved to WP:USURP. Soxπed93(blag) 03:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Slater79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What? Who's Johnny? My name is Runt
Decline reason:
Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. seicer | talk | contribs 23:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.