User talk:Acjelen/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mistakes of mine unowned elsewhere

[edit] Division of the Americas

Please see entry in the Talk page. Greetings. --Damifb 06:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North America fork

Hello! Please comment and weight in on the nomination for deletion of North America (Americas), a recent fork of North America. Thanks! Corticopia 11:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again ...

Thank you for weighing in on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way (and the article has been deleted), this has reared its ugly head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in again. If you're able/comfortable to do so definitively once more, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again! Corticopia 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Dead Fred in Template:Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Your edit to Not Dead Fred here (which is only a stub category different from the current version) acknowledges Not Dead Fred is a speaking part from a well known scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Thus I can't see why you don't like it being mentioned in the film's template. --Mark Hurd 01:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I'm sorry if that is the sense from my edit as that was not my intention. While Not Dead Fred may be a character in Spamalot, the old man in Monty Python and the Holy Grail isn't named. -Acjelen 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your comment

... is at my talk page! Joie de Vivre 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on my Talk page. Please do not do it the way you described! The "page move" procedure is highly preferable in my opinion. Joie de Vivre 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought you would have a better way. You know, I'm watching your talk page. You don't need to respond in both places. -Acjelen 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You know, what I am about to say is a general observation and not about you in particular: I feel like I can't win. If someone comments on my talk page, and I just respond on my talk page without alerting them on theirs, people say "you didn't tellll meeee to watch your talk page!" If I let people know on their talk page that I responded on mine, people say "stop PESTERING ME! I am WATCHING your TALK PAGE, I am not STUPID." I give up.  :P
Wow. In that case, I'd continue as you were. It is actually very helpful, but seemed to me like extra work for you. -Acjelen 19:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it is good that you figured out how to archive. However, I think that you did it too soon. Generally, it is better to wait until a week has elapsed after the latest comment. The reason is that it's better to make sure things have actually died down and then archive, than it is to archive too soon, where people will then fire up the conversation again on the nice clean page  :) Joie de Vivre 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I know you said that the requested move was closed, but it is still better to leave up the discussion for a week or so. People can still make comments about the discussion, it is too hard-fisted to just pack it away immediately. Joie de Vivre 19:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the requested move is closed, I'd rather any discussion about the article take place on a "clean" talk page. -Acjelen 19:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand, but I think that grouping relevant discussions together is more important than talking on a "clean page". Just because the discussion was closed by an admin does not mean that people are done talking on that topic; so it creates an unnatural break in the flow of conversation. Something to keep in mind. Joie de Vivre 19:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:SKUncommonRitual.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SKUncommonRitual.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:SKShortTripHome.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SKShortTripHome.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:SKAppalachianJourney.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SKAppalachianJourney.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:SKAppalachiaWaltz.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SKAppalachiaWaltz.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary?

Hello. I'm unsure if you want to weigh in here, but please do if compelled to. Thanks. Corticopia 05:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronoun

Hi, Acjelen. I am writing to let you know that I edited one word of your comment; the gendered pronoun I replaced with a gender-neutral reference. Please see the diff here. I choose not to reveal my gender on Wikipedia and I ask that others will respect that. Please contact me if you have questions or concerns. Thanks. Joie de Vivre T 14:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's no problem. I changed it further myself to avoid the plural. I also am less than completely thorough with my self-identifying userboxers, so I'll try to remember that you've not revealed your gender. -Acjelen 15:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:StrengthInNumbersTheTellurideSessions.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:StrengthInNumbersTheTellurideSessions.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undos

If you are taking it upon yourself to undo everything, then you better undo it right. Categorize them where they belong, ie. Wayne Shorter modal jazz albums, et cetera. Don't just be a jerk. (Mind meal 18:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

We may have a different idea about genre categorization. If an album has hard bop songs, post-bop songs, and modal jazz songs then the album itself is unqualified jazz. I might think to list two subgenres, but when one gets to three, it is best to bump it up a level. -Acjelen 19:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But that just isn't accurate. Are we aiming for inaccuracy? Who the hell says two is okay, but not three? If an album falls into all those categories then it needs to be categorized appropriately. Again, jazz is a generic term. Bump it up a level to what? Category:Jazz albums? But then that album which falls ino modal jazz will not appear in the modal jazz category, because it breaks the so-called "two genre" rule. This is just becoming bizzare. Nobody actually seems to want to solve this problem, because I suspect nobody understands how needed this is concerning jazz. I do. I want to get it right, but every turn I take there is nothing but red tape and obstruction. How the hell is creating a unique genre-specific category for every artist a good thing? Have you even tried doing this? Do it for about 10 artists, and you tell me if it isn't stupid. (Mind meal 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
    • If you will notice, the present scheme at the Album Project for categorizing album articles tries to accomplish what you want to do (to group albums in a genre by artist), but only by sacrificing on the number of musical genres allowed to one per artist. You see this as nonsense, that even though one album can be both hard bop and post bop, it would be inaccurate to settle on just jazz as its genre. But there are plenty of people on the other side of the spectrum: those who couldn't tell the difference between bluegrass, country, and western swing. Country is just country to them. I know people further than that—people who hear just popular music and western art (or "classical") music, without futher genres. If an artist is limited to one genre, those genres will be necessarily broad and encompasing. It would then be the rare musician who records in more than one very broad genre. No one sneezes at the difference between Paul McCartney's classical albums and the rest of his albums, but why lump the others together. Flowers in the Dirt and Run Devil Run are very different from each other, but there is a clear similarity when compared with Standing Stone. One important thing about Wikipedia is that it must serve (and be served by) all English-speaking people, not just Americans, not just the well-read, and not just experts. It is incredibly democratic and needs to embrace compromise. Finally, I want to point out that the problem you are running into deals with the structure of Wikipedia. When I speak of categories, I mean the special parts of Wiki software that creates the wikilink categories at the bottom of the page. If those links are genre categories, do they need to match the genres listed in the infobox? -Acjelen 22:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncommon Ritual

Why have you reverted my edits? Displaying chronology doesn't make any sense for only one album. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Chronology. Jogers (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I need to respond as the chronology is back. The album wikiproject doesn't mention excluding chronologies from first albums. -Acjelen 15:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Albums specifically says that for first albums the "last album" field should be left blank just as the "next album" field for latest albums. Please discuss it there if you disagree with this guideline. Jogers (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Your issue is with the space holders. I was reading blank much more loosely than you. -Acjelen 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wichita Falls

My interest in the population decline in Wichita Falls? I have absolutely no interest one way or the other; my only experiences with Wichita Falls have been driving through on US-287 and US-82 and I'm not even from Texas, so I really couldn't care less. I do have an interest in geography, and cities, and population statistics (okay, I guess that makes me weird), so for Wikipedia purposes, I have an interest in making sure that such statistics are reported accurately and objectively. Why you would want to construe that as some sort of anti-Wichita Falls bias is beyond me. And whether WF has reached 100,000 or even 10,000,000 in the past is kind of beside the point - I'm interested in having authoritative, up-to-date, accurate information available to everyone. And btw, I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts me. --NetherlandishYankee (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)