User talk:KaptKos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, KaptKos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Djegan 19:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] No time for an aggressive attack

I don't really agree/disagree with the sudden changes to the Rush article. But that aggressive POV take over was out of place. If you wish to rv the "Anon with an agenda" until he takes his debabte to the talk page for a proper discussion and resolution....I will support it. If he continues with his poor attitude about his opinion he will just have to be reported....yet again. Anger22 17:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's backed off for now. Thanks for the offer of support, though.KaptKos 10:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rottweiler

Thanks for letting me know! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:SparksHelloYoungLovers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SparksHelloYoungLovers.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:SparksBuckinghamPalace.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SparksBuckinghamPalace.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris de Burgh

Hi! I kicked this part out of the article because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with de Burgh's biography. I am not a particularly big fan of his. I just don't want to read such nonsense ANYWHERE on WP!!! People who get their own lemma should all be treated with respect and we should all remain strictly NEUTRAL and ENCYCLOPEDIC when we write about 'em. This part of the article is a lot of things but it is definitely not neutral let alone encyclopedic. --Fromgermany 19:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref formatting

Hi. I initial went to edit it because it had a missing space, but as I was editing it I amended it to use the standard web citation template, {{cite web}} I also tried to clarify that Sparkography was a part of the website rather than its name. —Whouk (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. One good thing about using the template is that if Wikipedia changes its display style for references in future, all the article refs can automatically change with it without having to edit them all. —Whouk (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Another note about using {{cite web}}. If you look at Template talk:Cite web, you'll see there are various other fields available. For example, the date of the material should go in the "year=" field, and the author can go in the "author=" field. Additionally, and websites which are formal mainstream news sites can use Template:Cite news, and online versions of printed journal articles can use Template:Cite journal. Again, the relevant Talk pages give details of template usage. —Whouk (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sparks

Just a note to say thanks for your work on Sparks - it's a great step towards the Maels getting the kind of quality article they deserve. I'd looked at that article a few times before wondering where the hell to start on making it better and kind of given up in despair, so it's great that someone's been brave enough to do so. --Mike 06:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This might interest you

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush trivia I voted to keep and merge with the pop culture article. It'd be a shame to see it go. There's a ton of intersting content that could go in there. Anger22 18:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rush sb

I realize this is a somewhat tardy response to the message you left on my discussion page. I tend to shoot (my mouth off) first and ask questions later. I bear you no personal grudge over the whole Rush article brouhaha. And you were correct, I did think that Rush sb idea was dead. I admire your adherence to your principles. You wrote: "I would still have reverted but it probable wouldn't have been as frustrating for you." I can understand that and would probably do the same myself. It seems we're probably never going to agree except on one thing: love for Rush's music and admiration for "the Boys."

I realize to people who have been invovled a lot longer than I have that I could appear to be a newcomer trying to simply stir things up. On the other hand, it appears to me that a group of Rush fans have decided that they are the arbirters of what's going to be in the article and what isn't.

I also realize my "sledgehammer" approach is hardly going to "win friends and influence peple."

Hopefully some middle ground can be achieved where new approaches can be accepted and new people invited to the party, so to speak.

PainMan 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rush response

Thanks for the response re: Rush.

I realize now that posting reverts to the article will merely cause someone else to revert them and then I would have to revert the reverts and on and on and on.

Since I seriously doubt anyone in the claque is going to give my changes a fair hearing (except for yourself and even you admit they wouldn't be acceptable to you and admire you for being upfront on that score) let alone a chance for them to be excepted, I don't really see any point in further contributions to the Rush article or sand box. Unlike Bobby Lee, I see the stone wall and the massed enemy rifles and artillery and I have no taste for Pickett's fate...

I had an entirely different concept of wikipedia when I first discovered it; naivete of which I have been quickly disabused. I will continue to contribute to various articles (yesterday I added some further information to the article on Peter Seller's widow, for example) but, to reiterate, it's pointless to try get my changes accepted on those pages where claques of individuals have decided that their version and only their version is orthodoxy and are determined to revert anything they consider heretical.

You are a straight forward and honest person and I appreciate that (the above remarks are not aimed at you...)

Regards,

PainMan 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2112

Hello. Let's try to work together on the article. 2112 is obviously a concept album. I mean, the story is explained in the article. It is a fairly detailed story, too. Perhaps we can say something like "The first half of the album is a concept album, while the second half has nothing to do with the story of 2112." What do you think? Can we work to some kind of compromise? dposse 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

When the album was released, was it a two disc/record set? If it was released today, would it be a two disc set? If so, we can say that the first half of the album 2112 is a concept album, while the other half is not. dposse 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 19, 2006

Rush will be on the main page. We all better be keen to monitor the article that day. I expect my VandalProof rv count will spike pretty high. Cheers and take care! Anger22 12:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're going to need some physiotherapy on your index finger from clicking your mouse too much! I am having server problems, my internet has turtled up and my page is loading ssssllllllow. Everytime I go to rv the page you've beaten me too it. There should be a barnstar for self-inflicted carpal tunnel. :) Cheers! Anger22 14:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Peart

Hey Kap. I'm not going to edit war with the latest nonsense editor on the Peart article. Perhaps someone else...you! :) ...can take a stab at it. Cheers! Anger22 18:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rush is actually Russian doncha know!

Multiple IP's....same foolishness. Good catch! I don't the the vandal's edit has ever stuck longer than 5 minutes. It's nice that a good page like that gets monitored by so many people. Cheers! Anger22 11:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Around

Thanks for notifying me. Yeah, I've done what you recommended, and yes, that was one of the reasons I created it, due to the lack of pages for Sparks singles. And I'm pretty sure it was Dick Around/Waterproof... But cheers anyway! ~ WastBarktender100, 11:33, 25 October 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Dawkins

Every time I introduce references to Betrand Russell, Haekel, Dennis Noble or Bob May on the Dawkins page one of the "keepers of the flame" does a revert. If you can offer a reasoned argument or improvement then please do so, but don't just mindlessly revert. It is against Wikipedia policy, and plain silly! Please discuss or improve if you have a reasoned PoV NBeale 18:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The detail you added on Betrand Russell, Huxley and Haekel is unsourced and this, along with the other detail you have added are riddled with POV and weasel words and are generally unencyclopedic in style all of which are against wiki policy and/or guidelines and I do not consider them an improvement. This article is very well sourced and well written so such additions are, more than likely, going to be reverted, if not by me, then by someone else.--KaptKos 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

a. Nothing in the first para is sourced. And I cannot see what is controversial about the assertions I make. If anything I am too kind to Dawkins in comparing him to Haeckel who was a first-rate scientist.

b. if there is PoV or Weasel Words then please amend them.

c. And why delete the references to Bob May and Dennis Noble (both truly world-class scientists)?

NBeale 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi KaptKos. I followed your suggestion and put a short para in the Sandbox. Sparkhead kindly moved it here but we can all still edit it. Although I have left my long form version in I also have a short form which focuses only on the good scientists as discussed and uses Dawkins' own words. Sparkhead and Laurence have both looked at it and made no changes. i'd like to "be bold" and put it in the article - people can improve it of course and I expect they will - but we are more likely to get wide contributions if it is there. Any views? NBeale 20:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sparks

Hey, good work guy, you've brough the article along nicely over the last few months. Enjoyed the Lennon quote re Ron's tash! Anyway - Coil00 01:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And Another

This is ridiculous.... [1] *Sparkhead 11:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR report

Thanks for notifying me. It seems that the whole thing has settle down now, for a while. mensch • t 17:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be wary

A new 'editor' has decided to try a wholesale "house cleaning" on our favourite FA. I restored the blanked sections and posted on the talk page that FA structure/content must be maintained. A second "what he said" from you and anyone else you can think of will nail down some concensus to "make it so". Cheers! Anger22 02:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SparksHelloYoungLovers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SparksHelloYoungLovers.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 19:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture

Just a note to say keep on fighting the good fight re trivia and cruft. Its only natural that editors would want to populate other articles with mention of their own articles. But. If its not relevant, its just pollution. IMSO. - Coil00 00:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sparks-sax&violins.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sparks-sax&violins.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/p/User_talk%7EKaptKos_4e51.html"