User talk:Ecto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thanks for your edit at talk:Jim Jones and Welcome!

Hello, Ecto, 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!  Andries 21:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the Jim Jones article has two formats of references: a new format that I used for the monkey and an old format that I had used previously that has to be replaced. Please do keep editing Wikipedia and insert references with the new format even after the unjustified and possibly disappointing revert of your edit on Jim Jones. Andries 10:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 212.159.79.225 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

I've noticed you've been as busy as a punk rock bee since you signed up a few days ago. Good job with the punk related articles, it is good to see some new changes, especially on the punk page. The Ungovernable Force 09:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just checking in and an award

I wanted to see how your editing has been going recently. I have to say once again, good job on the punk article, you have really made it great! I was wanting someone to make an article that focused on the whole culture and not just the music, so I congratulate you. I think if we source the material, we could probably get it to be a featured article pretty soon.

Anyway, I gave someone a devilock a few days ago while at school, it was pretty cool, especially since I had never cut anyone's hair other than my own (and all I did to myself was shave parts off into a tri-hawk, then a mohawk, then with a 1/2 inch clip). It was fun. I should start a punk hair salon. The Ungovernable Force 09:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the star! There's a lot left to do for the punk article, especially the 'History' section. I'm not sure if I'm up to the task of writing a history of punk article. I had an awesome outline for it, but that got deleted by accident, and I haven't had the heart to take another crack at it. I've been meaning to hit up the library for some of the books listed in the bibliography for references for punk. There's also some web sources we could use. Once the 'History', 'Fashion', 'Mainstream and popular culture', and 'Subcultures within punk' sections are done/redone, and everything is fully sourced, then I think it would pass a nomination for GA. Heh, back in the day I used to have a green faux, followed by a black devilockish deal, then I went short and choppy, and now I have a businessman. It's funny how hair changes. Ecto 07:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I used to have a mullet just like billy ray cirus (I was under 10 at the time, mom's idea). Then I let the top grow out and I had long hair down to my butt. Then I cut it Kurt Cobain style to my shoulders. Then I cut it like the guy in Moulin Rouge (my grandma needed a picture of how I wanted it, and that was the best I could find), then I cut it to about 2 inches, then a 3 inch tri-hawk, then a 3 1/2 inch mohawk, then a 1/2 inch clip, and now I'm letting it grow out to about ear length I think, but it's still only a bit more than 1/2 an inch. I wear a bandana so people don't think I'm a bonehead ;). I recently changed the history to early history, since it only goes up to the late 70s. When you lost the outline, had you saved it at all, because part of it might still be in the history? If you need any help, just holler. The Ungovernable Force 08:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Haha, mullets... Nope, the outline was on my old hard drive, which died horribly. There's a bit of it left in the history of punk, but only very general section titles I was considering. I'll put an outline up in my sandbox or somewhere when I get it cranked out, and I'll give you a nudge then. Ecto 09:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny Punk

Hey, you created Funny punk, but the thing is, I can't find any info on it outside of wikipedia. Are you sure this is a notable genre, and if so, can you direct me to some sources? I was going to list it for deletion, but I thought I'd ask first. The Ungovernable Force 08:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference, and more shouldn't be that hard to find. My local library has absolutely no books about punk, so I can't provide any paper sources. Anyway, check it out. Ecto 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Although I see that some people have used it, I'm still not sure it is really what we could consider an established genre. I've never seen the term before. A google search for "funny punk" returns only 17,400 hits (most of which are unrelated), while "anarcho punk" and "crust punk" have 168,000 and 136,000 respectively. It just doesn't seem up to snuff for an article here, especially without a better source (and you won't find one in a library, trust me). I can understand using the term in general conversation and it seems like a useful genre classification, but I'm afraid it is more of a neoligism than an recognized subgenre. The Ungovernable Force 05:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've heard it before. 17,400 hits is alright for a substyle. That's in the same neighbouthood as, say, post-punk revival (check it out). It's kind of ridiculous to expect funny punk, or a lot of other substyles, to have as many hits as anarcho-punk or crust punk, especially anarcho-punk, which is huge. The average I've seen for styles less obscure than funny punk but more obscure than anarcho-punk is about 100,000. You can nominate the article for deletion if you want. Maybe that would tease out some more references. Ecto 18:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
One last point, like I said, most (actually, all) the hits I saw were unrelated to a genre. It was just any time the word punk followed the word funny. The Ungovernable Force 01:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I've listed it for deletion. See here to comment. Don't take it personally. The Ungovernable Force 08:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theta Beta Potata PUNK HOUSE Deletion Review

[edit] Theta Beta Potata

This article was first started by me and was deleted back in May '06. I was reading the punk house article and saw that the link for the TBP article was no longer red so I clicked on it and there was an article back up, started by another user. I dont know who started it because, it was deleted soon after I saw it. The decision made in the "Article for Deletion" debate should be reconsidered. The article is about a punk house not a fratenal organization. It seems that the debate, run by User:ChrisB and results were reported by User:Mailer Diablo. I will post this on their talk pages. This is the first time I have requested a deletion review so please let me know what else I need to do. If there is anything. I am on wikipedia frequently and I want to learn. Thanks. Xsxex 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lindskoog vs The Dark Tower

Hi. You wrote here that "Several critics have challenged the authenticity of" The Dark Tower (1977 novel). We currently mention one, Kathryn Lindskoog. I suggest that we either name at least one other critic, or change that sentence. What do you think? Cheers from Australia, CWC(talk) 17:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Lindskoog was the only critic from whom I've heard that claim. Yes, we should change that sentence. Ecto 23:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice fix. Thanks, CWC(talk) 00:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Channel Nightclub

Thank you for edits to the Channel Nightclub they make perfect sense. Sometimes when you work on an article so much you seem to go blind to it. Markco1 15:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

As an editor of the article "Jhonen Vasquez", you are invited to a Request for Comment (as suggested by Admin Luna Santin). Please see: Talk:Jhonen Vasquez#Request for Comment: Book format. -- Tenebrae 04:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-punk and sXe

Hi, would you mind taking a look at the section titled "Input needed at Anarcho-punk and Straight edge" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Punk music. Thanks. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 02:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words (anti-Christian prejudice)

Although we clearly disagree, and quite strongly it would seem, it's also obvious we're both working in good faith to improve the quality of articles that catch our interest. So, on that note, I owe you thanks for the weasel words edits to Anti-Christian prejudice. I'm relatively new here at Wikipedia, and while I've learned about a lot of tags to alert the reader of certain problems with an article ( POV, Original Research, and a few others ), this one is new to me. I've seen quite a bit of complaining about weasel words, but haven't come across the procedure for dealing with them yet - I'll make a note of this for the future, and defer to your edits in this particular case. FireWeed 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've begun rewriting parts of the article on anti-Christian prejudice, and would very much appreciate your input on my changes. I plan to continue with them, unless there is objection, but I'm going to stop for a while and give you (and others) a chance to read them and give me some feedback on whether I'm improving the article, or just making divisions worse. I've tried removing a lot of the "weasel words" by giving specific examples, which I'm a little concerned about ... from memory I've listed people I've encountered doing what the article attributes to "some people." Of course, the ones that catch headline attention and leave a lasting impression tend to be some of the most extreme examples ( like Bill O'Reilly's war on Christmas ). This could lead to the impression that only the most polarizing individuals are involved here, but my thinking is that even having just a few specific examples is far better than text like "some people think that ..." Also, while I very often find myself in strong disagreement with the ACLU, on the whole I support them. I believe very strongly in the rule of law and allegiance to the Bill of Rights, even if this is often exploited in ugly ways. So, while I feel that the article is slanted too much to one side, I don't want my own bias to pull things too far in the other direction. I've tried to be as balanced as possible in my copy edits, but still, this seems like a good reason to allow feedback before I continue with them. FireWeed 22:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of Christianity

I noticed your edits on this article. While it can be frustrating to deal with editors who insert content without citations and don't come to talk, we should all remember to remain calm and civil. There is no reason to 'shout' in edit summaries. There is never a reason to tell another editor to "get off it". A little patience and a more positive tone can go along way. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 22:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good deal. I don't think you did anything wrong. I just saw your tone getting a little snippy and wanted to post this friendly reminder before things got out of hand. Thanks, for this!-Andrew c 23:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

re: my talk page: I do not dispute you have added citations. I'm glad you did. But you see we both have different goals, your goal is very NPOV oriented. Which is fine on a page which constantly oscillates between pov-fork and actual article (it is a busy article). My goal is keep get the content on Wikipedia well referenced, and keep Wikipedia as a tertiary source. Our goals are somewhat related in that sense. You were not the main target of that response, you were simply one of the nameable editors. The whole discussion sorta span out of control. Sorry for getting snippy about citation style and using sarcasm. I appreciate you went and found a tertiary source to cite. My concern is that many of the criticism articles just degrade pretty badly into OR if editors are not vigilant. I also wanted to help you by providing ammo with dealing with some of the poorly sourced bible quote edits. Yes, you got painted with the same brush that I painted Jzyehoshua (arbitrary threshold) and I apologize for what you read into it (I should've been more specific). Thanks for your apology on my talk page. --Quirex 04:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talpiot Tomb

Just want to say good work on Talpiot Tomb, that article has been bothering me and looks a lot better as of your recent edits! Tritium6 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/c/t/User_talk%7EEcto_5067.html"