User talk:Nareek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, Nareek, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions goto Wikipedia:Help or the FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.

[edit] Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

[edit] Be Bold!!

You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.

Joe I 06:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actors categorization

Nareek, thanks for your participation in the discussions regarding Actors categorization. You contributed in a significant way, especially for a relative Newbie to Wikipedia (if you don't mind my calling you that :) In answer to your request on Category talk:Actors, yes I will spell out there what I'm intending to do (but first I have to figure it out myself ;) - that was mostly meant to be facetious; I have a pretty good idea of what I intend to do. I will take a little time and give an example with an explanatory note, within the next 24 hours - right now I'm kinda mulitasking between Wikipedia and other things - I need to be able to concentrate on WP only to give a good answer. --Cheers, Lini 23:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks, Lini. I've been impressed by how well Wikipedians work together--for an online community composed of thousands of strangers, it's remarkably harmonious. I appreciate the welcome. Nareek 05:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bruno and Crowley

Hi Nareek,

Thank-you for your message! I've only started learning how this messaging system works -- you'll find a version of this note over on my discussion-page. I've known about Wikipedia for years, but this is the first time I've spent any time here. It's very cool!

Crowley IS daunting -- I've edited him! But you're right, Wikipedia is a marvelous experiment, and if you're inclined to improve on the Crowley articles, go for it, I know you'll do him justice!

Hey, I just added a link to the monad picture-caption on the John Dee article, and just discovered that the artwork at the end of that new link looks great when saved as a desktop-background.

Cheers,

Darwin Tallhouse


Nice identifiers for Bruno and for Dee/Kelley, Nareek.

Whoever wrote the material about how each of the first three volumes of Ægypt pays homage to a book from the Renaissance is onto something. What I'm wondering is -- if Crowley has continued that pattern, then what Renaissance book does the title Endless Things refer to? I don't know.

D.T.

[edit] Do You Believe in the Rapture?

Hi, where did you find out about the tentative Sonic Youth album title change? Everywhere i look "Do You Believe in the Rapture?" is listed as a song, not as an album title.--Amir E. Aharoni 17:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I was working from the edit made before mine, which cited a CMJ interview for the release date--I assumed that was the source for the title as well. I sorta got the sense that that was posted by an insider, though--maybe it was the dreaded "original research." Nareek 18:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

Re: Jack's Big Music Show - The two pages that drove me to this thinking are Build the web and Make only links relevant to the content. Neither of them mention red versus blue links specifically, but I believe it's more in the sprit of building the web to create the links for the relevant content, even if they end up red. I also believe that the red link is an enticement for someone to make a new article, or at least a new stub. adavidw 18:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poe link

Hi. The problem wasn't specifically with the Poe link, but rather that Lordjazz (talk • contribs) had inserted a link to a couple of sites, identically formatted, to ~30 pages. I noticed one cropping up on Rudyard Kipling (I trimmed the external links there a while back, and every now and again someone tries to add a link to their own site), reverted it and had a look at his contributions. Each one added a link, but no content added, no attempt to tailor the descriptions or anything... it rang all the linkspam warning bells, in the five or so I looked at, so I used rollback on the lot.

Hope that explains things. Shimgray | talk | 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poe's woes

Hi. Left a reply to you on the talk page for poe, but said I would explain a case where articles need semiprotection. If we were getting hit by multiple ip addresses, and in a very short frame of time, then the article could be semi or full-protected (no edits by anyone other than admins) in order for us to get a jump on reverting the vandalism and to hopefully shoo the vandals off. However, one or two an hour from unconnected people tends to be below the threshold needed for protection imo. I can list the page on vandalism in progress, but I am not sure that would get the article any more eyes than it currently has on it. :/

In any case, I'm not trying to be dismissive... I'm just trying to give you my honest opinion as an administrator. --Syrthiss 16:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bagoas

You might be interested in the account of Bagoas' destruction of Orsines, here. Regards, Haiduc 17:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. I have to ask you for a source besides speculation that Bogoas was Alexander The Great's lover. I do personally believe so, but for the sake of verification. Firegirl223 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The sources are cited in the article: He's explicitly in a sexual relationship with Alexander in Curtius, while in Plutarch it's implied by the public display of affection. I don't think there's a great deal said about him by history outside of his relationship with Alexander; that's what he's remembered for. Nareek 16:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grant Morrison

Hi, i found the decade breaks to be much better, when i first expanded that page months ago i tried the same as you did and found it quite cumbersome. Its far easier to leave it as it is (as Morrison has spent most of his career flitting between various companies) and let them expand (i still have loads to add in the 1980s for example) naturally.

The "wankathon" thing was a publicity stunt as well as a 'magical ritual', there's more information on it onThe Invisibles page which is more appropriate for expanding unpon it.

The All Star line is an odd one, it's easy to say it is DC's version of the Ultimate line but it is and it isn't at the same time. It's easier again to let any comparison of these lines remain on the relevant pages.

I find it easier to make it simple and keep it simple while trying to be as unspeculative as possible on Wiki. It makes things easier all round really. Incidently, i'm putting up a few Morrison related pages today (The New Adventures of Hitler and The Liberators so far) so if you can help fill any gaps feel free to jump in.Logan1138 13:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi again. I see what you're see with the headers being arbitrary but it makes the thing easier to edit for all and avoids situations such as the Alan Moore page from about a year or so ago which was virtually split into headers outlining everything he ever did in his career. Of course one way to do it is create sub-headers within the decades which keeps it fairly structured and easy to read.

The 'wankathon' thing was something a few of us were considering going into greater depth with on The Invisibles page. We can perhaps call it a sigil on Morrisons page but we should really leave the fuller explanation on The Invisibles page.

The All Star thing isnt a big deal but if it's purely speculation we should avoid it.

As said there's a load i've still to stick up, including Morrison's musical career, his plays and his other interests. As it stands the page is still a wee bit away from being featured article level, but give it a bit more work and it certainly could be. Logan1138 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been wracking my brain trying to work out how to put his non comics work into the article.I can't quite work out how to slip it in as his work outside of comics is barely touched upon. Basically the article is improving slowly and surely and it is turning slowly into one of the better comics articles on Wiki (a lot seem to turn into horrible examples of editors talking about 'canon' or speculating wildly) but yes, NPOV can be a pain in the arse at times but once you get your head round it then it helps greatly in improving articles.

We'll get there in time..... Logan1138 12:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page signature

It was good of you to leave word that you had altered the lead of NSA warrantless surveillance. You did not sign your comment there. The lead is an important part of an article. There is a section in Talk for discussing changes to the lead before making them. There is a template on the talk page asking that substantial changes be discussed before they are made. Your not bothering with any of that makes me wonder if you dislike like the absence of the NPOV template on the article. Metarhyme 00:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to forget the sig; it happens sometimes.
I guess I interpret "substantial" as meaning "major" rather than "involving any matter of substance." I didn't think of any of the changes I made as being major, or having particular significance as to POV one way or the other. I'm sorry if I overstepped.
I'm afraid I don't understand your last sentence. Nareek 00:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Attacked from left and right, the article has writhed beneath this POV label for much of its existence:
I agree that the lead has needs, it's just that it has to be extremely neutral. I foresee bullshit blasts that will put what has gone before to shame. Rove is worried about impeachment, and was cracking the whip over the republicans in congress, but he's had time since then to consider his next ploy, which will find its way into the article. If the article is kept neutral it may not degenerate. I'd like you to do two things:
  1. delete the {{NPOV}} template I put on your talk page, because it doesn't belong here; and
  2. go to =>this linked article Talk space<= and, way down at the end of the section, comment on deleting paragraph two.
A lead accepted by both impeachment advocates and neocons as neutral is the aim. No slanting. Hope to see you there. Metarhyme 10:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Achilles

Thanks for the heads-up. It was only one (fairly minor) edit that got caught up in the vandal-fighting, but I probably wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't drawn my attention to it. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

I have some acquaintance with fair use law, but I'm unfamiliar with the "no better image" aspect (per the Typhoid Mary debate). Can you fill me in what that's about?

Wikipedia policy is that if a better image can be used, either one which is free of copyright or one for which a better fair use rationale exists, we are to use that. I hope that helps. Steve block talk 22:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetization of categories

Hi, Nareek. No, as far as I know, there isn't a Wikipedia policy that categories should be alphabetical, but I think it's a good guideline since it makes the categories section look less cluttered, helps people find the category they're looking for easier (especially on the pages that have tons of categories), and avoids in advance any conflicts over which categories should come before others due to importance. If you have a good reason to change the order, that might work out better. I tend to think categories sections are more practical and more neat when alphabetized, but you're certainly free to have another opinion. --Rocketgoat 20:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soul article

Hi Nareek. You reverted out in the article on Soul two significant quotations by the great classical scholars, Erwin Rohde, from his classic work on Psyche (Soul), and Francis M. Cornford, from the article on Soul, citing NNPOV, without any discussion. I don't understand. These are highly respected scholars for decades and have important observations to make on the soul. It's not my point of view, they are direct quotations on their scholarly works about the soul. I will have to put them back in unless you can furnish some justification. There should be some discussion before such an action. These are literal quotes by famous and accepted scholars. Also, Cornford's passage is just quoting Pindar, one of the ancient sources. Also, your removal of the accepted point of view on Dr. MacDougall is unclear in motive. Please explain. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 16:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nareek. Thanks for your kind and quick response. I had no idea what was going on ! I appreciate your taking the time to fix it and provide me with some re-assurance. Again, many thanks. I can understand how it could happen to any of us. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nareek. Yes, WP is amazingly good about self-healing ! In this case it is my habit to discuss before reverting out changes such as the ones you made, except in really exceptional cases, to discuss it and find out if I blew it and what the motivation was ! Someone I know from the WP arbitration committee once gave me that tip which was a good one. I might add in a very strained situation at the time. Our WP community is very decent that way. Keeping things cool-headed. And what's life worth anyway without some enthusiasm or even occasional over-enthusiasm ? ;) Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ware Tetralogy

Sorry about that, it just seemed to me that the article was rather sloppily and unevenly done, and could use some revamping by someone that has read the series. -- Gizzakk 18:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I myself have not actually read any of the books, i was just going through the novels that have won the Phillip K. Dick memorial award and checking the ones that actually have articles and noticed that this one could use some help; if you feel like really revamping it/improving it, i would probably suggest changing the page itself to a summary of the whole series, with links to the individual books. WP:NOVEL has some usefull templates for starting book articles, and think about joining as well if it appeals to you. -- Gizzakk 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Severn valley

Regarding the dashes... After rereading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes), I'm still not exactly sure what the preferred style is (I suspect that the guidelines have changed since the last time I read the article). However, I did take special note of this section:

A pair of hyphens -- either spaced or unspaced--like that. These are simple to type, but are regarded as ugly by some. They may be taken care of in the future by automatic conversion bots or scripts. Editors who do not want the bother of keying in special characters or HTML entities are free to type their dashes in this fashion.

This would seem to give you carte blanche to use double dashes (and most certainly you can freely use them on discussion pages). However, since the section says that these characters may someday be "taken care of" by "conversion bots or scripts", this leads me to believe that "—" is preferred in articles. But I don't want to step on your preferred style; if you would rather use -- instead of —, then go ahead (and I won't take offense if you change all the —'s back to -- in the Severn valley article).

BTW: In "Severn valley", I turned your web link into a footnote. I did this just in case the web site suddenly goes away (a frequent occurrence) or the url changes. By having a footnote and a web reference, this gives the reader some context (without having to follow the link). This would also be useful if (and whenever) the article is printed.
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 02:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I wish WP had more style rules--a lot of these things it doesn't really matter how you do them, but you ought to do them consistently (serial commas, for example). I'm used to doing the double hyphen m-dash; I can see the aesthetic appeal of the — ; I'll try to use the latter, but chances are I'll sometimes forget, and you should feel free to change them.

I haven't figured out how to do the footnote thing yet; it does seem better than merely having numbered html links. Nareek 03:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks like Wikipedia changed the method (see Wikipedia:Footnotes). I had been using my own template, {{Rn}}, which is non-standard, instead of the {{Ref}} template, because the latter messes up the formatting. But I suppose I should change to the new style — it seems to be easier to use and you don't have to worry about keeping the {{note}}s in the right order. (Although I notice it does mess up the formatting—oh well...)

    The way the new method works is fairly simple. You put <ref> reference text </ref> wherever you want the footnote to go, and then you put <references/> in the Notes section. It might look something like this:

    This is a paragraph.[1]
    It is also very short.
    It is very boring as well.
    Thank you for your patience.[2]

Notes
  1. ^ John Doe, How to Write Boring Paragraphs, pp. 234
  2. ^ Ibid, pp. 387


Which would look like this in the editing window:

This is a paragraph.<ref>John Doe, How to Write Boring Paragraphs, pp. 234</ref>
It is also very short.
It is very boring as well.
Thank you for your patience.<ref>Ibid, pp. 387</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>


-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 04:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's actually really cool. Nareek 04:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scholars/experts

I agree that not every institution is equal...a doctorate from Duke or Harvard or Cambridge is far more "legitimate" than one from "George Smith's Bible College and Merchandise". But a doctoral degree from a reputable institution matters, as would a professorship at a reputable institution. We need to take these folks seriously, whether or not we agree with them. Yes, there is something to be gained from listening to "non-academics", but that doesn't mean we can call them scholars or experts.

Yes, there's subjectivity involved in Wikipedia, but when we state opinions and positions (and, depending on the article, facts) in articles, we simply cannot state what we think (see WP:NOR). This isn't the KHM03 Encyclopedia or the Nareek Encyclopeia; it's a broad project which relies on the editors reiterating what "experts" have said about a variety of subjects. We also have to deal with this policy and this one, which really hurts the Freke/Gandy/Jesus myth supporters...and these are Wikipedia's policies, not mine.

Hope this helps...KHM03 (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Migrate to "Cthulhu Mythos"?

Re: Cthulhu mythos or Cthulhu Mythos?

I get the impression that you prefer the uppercase version "Cthulhu Mythos" (and there's no denying that most authors write it that way). I myself have no particular attachment to "Cthulhu mythos" — I've simply been using that version for consistency since the original article used the lowercase form.

However, if you think we should go with the uppercase version, I won't object. Of course, this would require mass moves of both articles and categories. It would also require extensive changes to all articles that have section links (such as Cthulhu mythos biographies). While some moves are unobstructed, existing articles like Cthulhu mythos (and a few others), would need formal move requests (I've pretty much given up on using the {{CapitalMove}} template—for whatever reason, administrators seem to ignore it). And categories would require a similar, but separate, process (most likely a multiple move request).

I'm willing to go this route, but first we need to be absolutely certain we want to do this. And at the very least, we should start with articles like Cthulhu mythos—putting it through a formal move request—to see if a capitalization move is supported by consensus before doing unobstructed moves and category moves. So what do you think?
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 00:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the uppercase M for two reasons--one is that most if not all of the people who write about this seem to prefer "Cthulhu Mythos" as the style; two is that it seems awkward to me to say "mythos-related" (and the like) instead of "Mythos related". I'm prepared to accept this change as a done deal once it's been made. Nareek 19:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Cthulhu mythos" migrate to "Cthulhu Mythos" accepted!

According to the comment left on my my talk page, Nightstallion went ahead and perfomed a mass move of all Cthulhu Mythos-related articles (apparently, Nightstallion was persuaded by my arguments on the Cthulhu Mythos talk page despite a vote of no consensus!). The final step will be to move categories — you may weigh in on this issue here.
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 00:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Alternative music

Hey, I'm developing a Wikiproject for Alternative rock and its subgenres. If you are interested in participating, I have listed the proposal at Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Alternative_music. I have created a temp page located at User:WesleyDodds/Alternative music. WesleyDodds 07:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mighty Casey

Ummm why did you redirect my page about mighty casey? If people wanted to know about that poem they would type in casey at bat or whatever.

Lordofhyperspace 04:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year in Music

Yes. I've been removing as many [[YEAR in music|YEAR]] links as I can. See WP:ALBUM#Style and WP:PIPE#Easter eggs. Perhaps you'd like to discuss the issue at those pages. I'm sure those guidelines aren't set in stone. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-01

Of course those edits of mine are unilateral. They're too minor to discuss beforehand. I'm not claiming that policy prohibits those links, just that all advice is against them and none (that I'm aware of) is in their favour. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-01

Sorry. I had no idea this was so controversial. I sha'n't remove any more [[YEAR in music|YEAR]] links. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-02

[edit] Vandalism

I saw your comment on HMains's talk page. If someone continues to vandalise after recieving a final warning, the normal procedure is to list them on WP:AIV. --David Mestel(Talk) 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. By the way, I highly recommend VandalProof as a tool for vandalfighting. --David Mestel(Talk) 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again

Hi, Nareek, it's fun to cross paths with you again, elsewhere than categorization of actors (at The Last of the Wine by Mary Renault). I've read 2 of her books, The King Must Die and The Persian Boy; really enjoyed them - she seems to have the ability to take the reader right out of the 20th (21st?) century and back to a world that is long gone. Now I've been trying to learn more about Plato, and remembered that she had written a novel set in the times of the great philosophers - so, I've placed a hold on Last of the Wine at my local library (I'm glad they still have it!) - I think I'll read it to help get a setting of the times. Cheers, Lini 05:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tuppence on tomes

Hi Nareek -- Yes, that category is clumsy, but "tome" isn't an appropriate word. It implies a large and important book, and not all the texts in question are large or books (or particularly important), e.g. the Celaeno Fragments, the Eltdown Shards. It's also a bit mock-pompous. I'd suggest "Cthulhu Mythos invented texts". Aelurophile 21:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] “Evolving”

It's very unfortunate that someone who presents himself as an editor by trade would either misuse the definite article or mistake “evolving” for representing a POV. I'm the person who introduced the use of that word in the heading for the section about Murtha's views. I didn't do so in support of Murtha — I think that most of what he has said, one way or another, has been foolish — I did so as a non-POV way of preparing the reader for the fact that the views that Murtha had expressed were not subject to the easiest sort of reconciliation one with another. The fact that a few right-wing howlers presumed that anything other than an indictment was a defense did not make it such. Your deletion of adjectives is not the NPOV alternative; it is simply an NPOV alternative which will leave the reader with an unfortunate and avoidable puzzle. —12.72.72.198 19:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclopia

I hope I'm doing this right! I put in the 'Cyclopia' entry in the Cyclops/Origins section and it was moved (by you? revision "14:56 7 August 2006") to become a "See also". That's fine - I think from looking around Wiki (regular user, new as a contributor) and from your comment, its because there's no provenance given, so it is 'original research'. I /have/ got this 'theory' (if I might call it that) from a documented source but I didn't have it to hand - it was a popular science book on genetic mutations. It's out on loan at the moment so I can't get the details, but when I do, I'll get back and see if that covers it and thus makes it a 'valid' entry for possible Origins. Ta, Gordon Panther.

[edit] Miyazaki

To answer your question, The info on the upcoming film is posted at Nausicaa.net. Finite 01:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Audioslave

I don't think so (I wouldn't know if someone was). Why? I did edit the Audioslave page myself Xunflash 02:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lovecraft

Thanks for the Lovecraft link- that was a really interesting article, I hadn't known of the connections between him and Derleth. Very cool!

[edit] Government Sources

Can you point me toward the policy on use of government sources? I'm not disputing the notion of writing our own text instead of "lifting" from government sources (I only did this for the Hare Krishna tree in TSP). But what are the guidelines on it? When I did that, my reasoning was that a. this text is not on the Internet, at least not in HTML (although there is a photo of it on the parks page), so I was adding value in that way; and b. that it did a good job of explaning the tree. Otherwise, similar to the Tompkins Square Park Police Riot I almost *always* cite my additions and do my own writing/re-writing. But could you give me some philosophical guidance on the redacting of public plaques? --DavidShankBone 13:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm honored by the compliment about the TSP police riot. It was my first attempt at really writing an article from scratch. I kind of threw up [[E.V. Day}} just because I loved how it looked at Lever House. Have you seen the Damien Hirst sculpture there? I think it must be ome of the most shocking things a tourist from the countryside could stumble upon. The police riot article is incomplete, which is why--ha ha--it gets shorter and shorter with each section. Wiki-burnout. I spent 15 hours one weekend doing it. I'll go back, but it's nice to leave some room for others. But I also appreciated your additions, and your advice. TSP was the first day I went out on a tourist jaunt for the sake of wiki-photographs, and I was probably overzealous wanting to work them into the page. I need to work on that one, though W.Marsh looks pretty protective of it. Maybe not. Anyway, I appreciated your comment and I didn't take it offensive. "Writing is re-Writing" is what a novelist once told me, though he meant your own, not someone elses. But for Wikipedia, it really does work! Keep up the awesome work! --DavidShankBone 03:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Treanor

Hey Nareek, I rewrote the William Treanor article. If you have time to cast your editor's eye on it, I'd appreciate useful feedback/editing. Thanks. --DavidShankBone 13:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haditha Investigation

Well, that's certainly acceptable structure, thought it loses a bit of the chronological order of the previous version. (The results of the investigation were first introduced into the article by a POVer who wanted to claim that “the Pentagon” suppported Murtha's version of events.) —12.72.119.65 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quoting template

In hindsight, {{cquote}} isn't the best template to use when quoting (there are several templates, with {{cquote2}} as an updated variant). I thought it might clear up the page a bit. Either one of the templates or perhaps a little more indenting, certainly the article reads OK, but I found it a bit cluttered. Scoo 11:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film noir

Thanks for your note. Rest assured, before my endless copyediting, proofreading, and tinkering, every single section of the article as it now stands was either written or extensively rewritten be me in whole chunks...

...which leads to your other point. I realize there are only eight critical citations in the article--but I am responsible for each one of them. I'm of the opinion that the best way to separate the wiki "wheat from the chaff" is to observe the overall care with which an entire article is written, organized, and designed. Almost invariably, the ones that rate highly in those categories are the most reliable both in factual accuracy and in rhetorical emphasis, whether they are replete with citations or not. Some topics call for extensive citation—see my work on RKO Pictures, for instance—while others call more for an expansive knowledge of the given field, the acuity to judge what is significant and what is not, and the temperament to filter out one's most contentious opinions while enlightening the reader to the myths and shibboleths embedded in mainstream critical discourse, of which academic and quasi-academic film noir criticism provides a particularly notable example. I hope I've demonstrated those capacities as regards this particular article, but I'm certainly ready to hear about passages where I've overstepped into tendentiousness or areas of the discussion that seem less than credible without reference to external sources. Best, Dan —DCGeist 01:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the advice

Thank you for the heads up on the right way to go about editing articles. I appreciate it. DAC1956 11:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Alexander

Hi! And thanks for your comment. Interesting enough, though i had not thought of it that much... What i mean is that i wikified Ancient Greece, so that the reader can be easily transferred to the page where he/she can read which city-states/kingdoms/leagues are included as greek by descent/greek speaking/with greek civilisation etc. The issue whether ancient Macedonia was greek or not is heavily discussed in Macedon. It is evident that only a tiny minority of modern scholars, and no ancient writer, profess that it was not. So, the opinion of the majority should be presented, with internal links for the reader to learn about the "dispute" if he/she wants. Honestly, i have been pretty tired reverting vandalism in that page and even more tired reverting propaganda in related pages. Of course, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all views shall be presented, but not in a way of giving to all of them the same value. There is one theory saying that the Sumerians were Minoans, that Samuil was not Bularian (a theory believed by those who say that Alexander and ancient Macedonia were not Greek-see how the issue is presented there), or another theory that Adolph Hitler was Jewish(!), etc. Such opinions are important, since they show the variety of opinion and may well be underlining specific political/racist purposes, but the reader should not confused in the leading of each article. Apropos, even the name of Alexander (in greek) was removed from the article in the past, as if he was known under a slavic name in antiquity! Anyway, thanks for your msg and hope u've understood what i meant. Regards --Hectorian 12:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing "Nigger"

Good job with your edits. Many weeks ago, I think I was the one who added the stuff about the word being somewhat unoffensive into the 1960's. I can't find it in the history now, but as I remember it, I had a very good source, and the new stuff replaced something that badly needed to be replaced. I didn't know enough at the time to cite the source in the article, and I can't find it again now. I think you're improving the article, and when I look it over now, I think it could use a LOT more cited sources, as hard as they may be to find. Lou Sander 03:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I was actually beginning to think that would be the best way to go as well. Have fun. - BalthCat 00:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azathoth

Nareek, I graded this article as start class based on the content as it stands at this time. This class and others are all described in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment">Assessment Scale</a>. If you wish to improve the article further, you would be attempting to make it worthy of a higher class as laid out in that scale. Silverthorn 15:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nareek- I agree with you that it should be rated higher- I'm not sure exactly what criteria that Silverthorn is rating it based on (I've read the descriptions of levels, but am not sure what problems that she has with the article). What I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure specifically why it is currently rated at Start rather than B- (specific issues to be fixed). I think it's a good article, though.  :) -Elizabennet 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yog-Sothoth

Hi Nareek: RE:"The Dreams in the Witch-House"In an August Derleth story, I can't remember which one, the "congeries of...bubbles" is definitely identified as Yog Sothoth. The image is Lovecraft's so the identification likely is too, whatever you think of Derleth. I don't agree the "congeries" is an aspect of Keziah or Brown Jenkin for that reason, and because after all, they appear as themselves in the dreams anyway. The definite Derleth identification (there's a chance it may have even been in Lovecraft)and the fact that this is a "mythos" story is why I linked "congeries" to Yog-Sothoth. What leads you to your interpretation? Now that I think of it, the story must have been one of those in the "Watchers Out of Time" collection in which Lovecraft had at least some participation (if only posthumously.) Thanks. Dominic 71.245.115.141 17:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morello

Sorry I did it based on the previous edit you reverted, I assumed that since you didnt deny the assertion in the edit summary, or claim it as vandalism, that it was being removed on grounds other than factual innacuracy, and therfore assumed it was factually accurate. It was a bit of an assumption I admit, and maybe I should have looked this up before acting. So, sorry. Thanks for reverting, if you're sure that hes not gay that is. Cheers! Philc TECI 19:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it made sense to people who had heard of Seinfield! I live in the UK, and I dont think I've ever come across it. Philc TECI 20:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Morello

Saw you removed my edit about RATM not being "one of the first band to mix rap with metal". Faith No More's debut release was in 1985 while RATM's debut release was in 1992... RATM are only part of the second generation, so the article's statement is just false. Back in the ol' days I remember listening to Suicidal Tendancies' early releases, though I don't remember they did rap by that time, it was just skaterock I think and the Beastie Boys did Hardore Punk then Hiphop, they mixed metal and rap later I think. Faith No More are second to? I don't know maybe, no one, before them, others did metal or hiphop not metal+rap. BTW bands like Body Count and Incubus who are part of the second generation ('90s), just like RATM, are not mentionned in the Rapcore article. And what does Run-DMC has to do with Rapcore? They are a Hiphop band (they are MCs not musicians), they only did a duet with Aerosmith, hit single "Rock This Way" and that's all, I guess. Paris By Night 20:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tsathoggua

Your removal of the "Family Tree" section of the page, rather than adding a note on it is of dubious benefit. There's now "orphaned" links that refer to to the Tsathoggua page, but no longer display any pertinent information for having linked to it. Most notably devestated are the Great Old Ones table in the Great Old Ones article, and removing the entries in them that linked to Tsathoggua entry and the family tree would likely do more harm than good. Indeed, I am not certain why you posit that Tsathoggua's family tree is not part of the mythos. Devilot 03:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Loren Cunningham mediation

Hi, I'm the mediator for the David Loren Cunningham MedCab case. Could I suggest you propose your changes on the talk page. Thanks, Addhoc 12:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert E. Howard

Nareek, I re-reverted your changes under writing. My original comments went into the editing history page; doubtless you didn't see them. Anyway: In "Nameless Cults," the Chaosium collection of REH's mythos stories, Robert Price talks extensively about how REH and HPL both started from the same place: Machen. They then did their own things with the idea. REH never copied HPL. That's why his mythos stories are better than, say, Robert Bloch's. And REH wrote to HPL in several letters lengthy recitations about old ghost stories and folklore passed on to him by relatives, hired help, and caregivers. Reading those recitations, it's obvious that they were the basis for stories like Pigeons From Hell and Black Canaan. So, I changed the wording to reflect REH's use of sources and avoid the misnomer that he "borrowed heavily" from HPL. Solomon Kane 02:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newton's Cradle

Hi Nereek,

I am very familiar with Chaucer BTW. I do live in the 21st century however 8=)

Candy 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baring-Gould article

I see you have reverted information that was gleaned from the wiki page Pygmalion (play). I find it hard to understand why this would be "beyond the scope of this article"? If that is the case then the whole speculation on the playshould be removed as the fact that it is based on Baring-Gould seems less well sourced than the Ovid one? --Herby talk to me 18:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I certainly see your point. I think my concern is that the Baring-Gould article appears to offer a quite authouritative connection to Pygmalion and yet Pygmalion offers no connection to Baring-Gould (which I certainly see as being as likely an influence as the Ovid connection). What I was trying to do was offer a balance or a stronger pointer to the Pygmalion article so that a reader of the Baring-Gould article who did not check out the Pygmalion link would have a more balanced view? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herbythyme (talk • contribs) 10:31, 9 Oct 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use in portals

As you might know, I've created an amendment for fair use in portals after the discussion located at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. It would be great if you could express your opinion, in support or against. ddcc 01:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BFH

Good catch! PT (s-s-s-s) 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Throwing Muses

The edit summary is a bit too small to get the point across properly. Anyway, what I meant was that in the 80s college rock bands like R.E.M., Husker Du, Pixies, and, yes, Throwing Muses were occasionally called "post-punk", somewhat unrelated to the original use of the term, ie. Joy Division, The Fall, PIL, etc. With the current reevaluation of post-punk in the last few years, that usage has pretty much fallen by the wayside in deference to the original use. Bands like recognized as something else entirley, and that something is alternative rock, rather than just a continuation of the post-punk movement of the late 70s/early 80s

But that's kind of beside the point; "post-punk" was added by an anonymous user to the first sentence after I removed it a few months ago. Aside from the terminology reason, "Post-punk alternative band" isn't a proper phrase and if you're going to list more than one subgenre you might as well just say "rock" in the first sentence so it covers everything. That's more my primarily objection; it just clutters up the sentence. WesleyDodds 03:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cazedessus and Kit Carson

Even with the strong POV, it appears that Caz is starting to come along. I've been trying to mentor a little, and communication is improving. I doubt we will ever see Caz understand NPOV on this topic, but he/she is also starting to make some edits to Navajo articles. They seem to be slightly more reasonable. Thanks for your input. Best wishes. WBardwin 17:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Rock

I received your message. I knew I should have made a discussion about disambiguation page and links, but I did that because I didn't like the confusion between Chinese rock and Chinese Rock. I mean, they are different articles, but they used to have different titles with kinds of confusion. Disambiguation notice did help, but I created Chinese Rock (disambiguation) without a second thought. I thought I wanted it deleted, but there is a rule against deleting that page. Go to the history of its title and other titles, and figure out why I did that.

So I thought it'd be best that I move two articles into different titles. And then I did good redirects.

If you want to talk more, reply me. --Gh87 02:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I receive your message. I tried a proposal for deleting that dreaded disambiguation page, but unfortunately it didn't work because it's a "helpful" disambiguation page. Check the history by clicking Chinese Rock (disambiguation) or [1]. I created that before moving it into Chinese Rock before someone moved into Chinese rock (disambiguation).

[edit] Santorini

I was trying to be neutral in the article, but apparently I failed. I added an entirely new article which I think is more neutral. You are right. I think it is better to reference the work directly, rather than quote the theories (which are presented as facts, so its hard to distinguish).

I thought it was vandalism because you blanked the entire article. I think it would be better to edit the article rather that just wholesale blank it. Don't you?

And yes, if I deleted part of the article that was a mistake. There was an "editing conflict" made as I was adding internal links, and in trying to correct this I may have made in advertant changes. My apologies.

[edit] Santorini

Hopefully I have correct the accidental deletion and made a neutral article about the documentary.

[edit] Backyardigans

Thanks for your comment. However, I don't recall cutting anything, simply moving parts of the page to an area where they made more sense. Sorry if I caused any problems.DAAdshead 11:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. The point was still valid - I should have detailed this move in the Talk Page. I have now done so, and will know better for the future! Ooops!DAAdshead 13:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-punk

I saw that you started a section on the origin of the term a while back. However, Simon Reynolds' footnotes to his book (available here) indicate usage of the term before the source your cited. In fact, one of the alternate names for the genre, "Afterpunk", does appear in an NME reprint article about Joy Division from 1979 that I own. However, if that article you cited has any other information that we can cite, that would be great. Believe me that I really do want to add more material and citations to the article and I have them available, but right now I'm preoccupied with work on articles that just interest me far more right now (God knows I've been wanting to fix up the mess that the Joy Division article is for months, but other things catch my attention. Like trying to figure out what the fuck the Mister Miracle bits have to do with any of the overarching plot of Seven Soldiers). WesleyDodds 11:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barzai the Wise

Nareek, since you're the one who started the article on "The Other Gods", let me get your opinion. In the story, where it says "it was he [Barzai] who wisely advised the burgesses of Ulthar when they passed their remarkable law against the slaying of cats", would you take that to mean that it was he who specifically suggested that law, or that he was merely their adviser *at the time* it was passed (whether he suggested it or not)?" If he did actually suggest it then I'll go ahead and add it to his biography in the article. Thanks. Cerdic 04:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon page blanking

Thanks for the note on User:75.3.122.60 blanking a page. When you revert vandalism, it would be helpful if you would warn the vandal as well. It is standard practice to provide an editor with warning before blocking — See Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I added warning messages to his/her talk page; has not edited in many hours. I'll keep a watch on this; please feel free to leave me a note if you see it happening again. — ERcheck (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The user was continuing to blank pages, and has now been blocked. If you see continued vandalism, you can report it on WP:ANI (Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism). — ERcheck (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not a problem going to a particular admin. However, the admin might not be online at the time. WP:AIV is monitored by admins, so responses can be made quickly. — ERcheck (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved comment

See "Diogenes of Sinope: The man in the Tub" by Luis E. Navia greenwood Press 1998. That's where I got alot of the material. It a very good book.Brenda maverick 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert E. Howard

Nareek, L. Sprague de Camp wrote stories to fill in the perceived gaps in the fan-produced "Probable Outline of Conan's Career." He did this to make it seem more like a "saga," from beginning to end. He hired other writers to help him. But at no time did he go write his own sword and sorcery epic, with lean, muscular prose, fast action, and supernatural menaces galore. He never did that, Nareek. That would have been a case of REH influencing de Camp. De Camp's prose never improved for all of his working on Howard's work. THAT is why I keep taking de Camp's name off of the Influenced list. De Camp was a defacto editor, not someone who read Howard and decided to go and do likewise. Solomon Kane 21:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice exapmle of civility!

Hi Nareek. I'm learning how to use these tools. I became interested in the Kit Carson article, and noticed some strong attacks on you by another member. I just read the WP on civility, and thought you have handled yourself well. Now that I have found the proper communication tool, if I might make a comment: on the expansion of pop culture for Kit, I noticed there are several ways to do that. One is like the button click format as on the Cochise article. There are others like on the Davy Crockett or Daniel Boone articles where there is narrative, which is what you might prefer. On Ronald Reagan there are click on links for songs and movies. I apologize in advance if this comes across wrong. I'm trying to join in on the fun.Richiar 06:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M.R. James

Hello Nareek, thanks for your tidying on MR James. Hope the added content didn't offend. I put 'Oh,Whistle and I'll Come to You, my Lad' in inverted commas because that's the way it appears on the title page of the story in my copy, so Monty evidently meant it to be a quote, unlike the others. That's why I was reduced to putting the titles in italics, to make a difference. I don't know the source of the quote, but it has an A.E. Housman sound with that 'my lad' on it. I think it may be a reference to Housman's More Poems no XXX, from the posthumous volume:

Shake hands, we shall never be friends, all's over;/ I only vex you the more I try./ All's wrong that I've ever done or said,/ And nought to help it in this dull head:/ Shake hands, here's luck, good-bye./ But if you come to a road where danger/ Or guilt or anguish or shame's to share,/ Be good to the lad that loves you true/ And the soul that was born to die for you,/ And whistle and I'll be there.'

(Collected poems, Cape, London, 1939, p. 189)

Obviously this is one of AEH's more explicit statements about male love, which is interesting from the Freudian standpoint in view of Monty's difficult personal relationships (which the article does mention), if that is what he's evoking in the title. The whole point doesn't really matter for the purposes of wikip, unless the article grows a lot: but I thought you might like an explanation that I wasn't just being careless. Sort it as you think best, this is out of my general field. Best, Dr Steven Plunkett 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Steve block Talk 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Parry

The article on investigative journalist Robert Parry, which you contributed to, is up for deletion. Just thought you might like to know. Steve Dufour 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.Steve Dufour 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Please give it some thought

OK, I'm stopping for now. I didn't mean to do anything controversial. I thought it was a well-established guideline on WP:MUSIC and I never bothered to check the archived discussions. Thanks for the note! Regards, Jogers (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Call of Cthulhu

Nice idea to do that in outline as part of the lead paragraphs. However the Novel pattern established at WP:NOVELS put the full treatment of those items later in the scheme of things. Unless you have some idea of what the novel is about what is the reason for the reaction etc. also it is chronologically backward, you would react after the publication of the work, it's absorbtion (i.e. reading) then the reaction.

I don't object to the approach on principle, just it is nice to see a general level on consistency across article on similar subjects.

Nice to see your work here! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grass is greener?

Let me say how much I agree with your "keep off the grass" comments about fair use and the GFDL. This has become one of those issues that seems to operate as a Wikipedia article of faith, rather than a pragmatic means to an end. Hence its inclusion as a meta:foundation issue, with the whole accompanying Because Jimbo Says So/Love It Or Leave It rhetoric that surrounds those. (See also my comments on that talk page.) Alai 07:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. About 10 minutes ago, I did tell one of my programs to revert all contributions by 81.152.226.79, but I only did that because the site that user was adding was essentially spam. On many of the pages the user edited, there were perfectly valid links to WikiSource texts of the same story, so I really didn't think that the site was necessary. Perhaps you could explain what you're referring to; I can't see your watchlist due to software limitations. Shadow1 (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up the rather large mess I made as we speak. Thanks for telling me about it, I would have never noticed the problems! Shadow1 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks Nareek for cleaning "Tell Me Why" & "Any Time At All" plus other bits. Looks better. Cheers, --Patthedog 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nareek, I have done a bit of a re-write on You Can't Do That and have just noticed that you've recently worked on it yourself. I hope I haven't offended you, or removed anything of yours that you held to be dear. Please revert or re-phrase anything you feel needs it. --Patthedog 15:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Point taken & done!--Patthedog 16:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I described Harrison as "acquiring" his 12 string as there is conflicting information regarding as to whether or not he bought it, or was given it by Rickenbacker. I think the latter, as it was great publicity for the company, but not sure yet. Still digging!--Patthedog 17:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic Youth

The copyright tag says "identification AND critical commentary" - not OR. I didn't see any critical commentary of the episode in that trivia section. Yes, the section talks about the Sonic Youth's bit part in the show, but that's promoting Sonic Youth - and they aren't the copyright holder of the image. In short, FOX didn't air this episode so that Sonic Youth could use its images to promote the band. Typically, these fair use images are only allowed in articles specifically about the subject itself. For example, one of Cher's album covers can illustrate the article on the album, but it can not be used to illustrate the article on Cher (though in practice, we do sometimes use them to illustration article sections when they are dedicated specifically to that album). Rklawton 04:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If they copyright notice had meant "or" it would have used the word "or". See also WP:FUC. We can't just decorate articles that mention a particular topic or we wouldn't have such a detailed policy telling us not to. Rklawton 13:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Memory (short story)

I didn't tag the article — I tagged the talk page, because it was blank, making it unnecessary and eligible for speedy deletion. That's why the tag is where it is. Sorry for any confusion – Qxz 03:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fair use in portals

there is currently a proposed amendment to include fair use images in the portal space at Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals2. I have decided to contact you because you expressed interest in this topic in the past. Please know that I am contacting all editors who partipated in discussions regarding this at WT:FUC. If you feel I contactd you in error, or just don't care :) please ignore me. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 03:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/r/User_talk%7ENareek_5baf.html"