User talk:Dbenbenn/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dbennben: vein is ér in Hungarian. If you add words, should do that correctly. Please only ONE word for one notion. Your many words are confusing and senseles.

Please do NOT delete the selected ground words. What you do is simply terror. Also do not censor the links. Are you so afraid of the truth? Antifinnugor 07:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Antifinnugor,
I don't know what you're talking about. I certainly didn't add words, as I don't know any foreign languages. I'm pretty sure I didn't delete any "selected ground words", whatever those are, either. If you still think I did, please provide a reference to the page history.
Dbenbenn 15:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Improvements

Hi Dbenbenn,

I have replied to your message on my talk page.

Pasquale 21:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ground words

It has probaly a better English word. Please name it. I call ground words the parts of the body, eye, nose, ear, leg, hand, the family like father, mother, brother, sister, milk (feeds the babies), the living environment, like house, way, sea, that people living in a simple environment, for sure use. Antifinnugor 09:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know a better term, since I'm not a linguist. Does this list of words have any particular linguistic meaning?
For example, nobody would expect the "ground words" in Finnish to be particularly similar to the same words in Hungarian. That doesn't have anything to do with their relationship. --Dbenbenn 20:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it has. For example the so called indogerman language theory is mainly based of the similarity of the words mother, father and the like. Besides that the grammatical similarity of having 4..6 cases, and the like.
If the two nations allegiadly have something to do with each other, they are allegiadly relatives, then how could they speak with each other, if the ground words are completely different? You never speak with your relatives? Antifinnugor 18:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(I rearranged your comments a bit to make the discussion more readable, and removed the comment that you duplicated from your talk page.)
The Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an entry on Indogerman. Did you spell it right? Can you provide a source, preferably in English?
"If the two nations": you seem to be confusing the issue here. We're talking about the Finno-Ugric languages. Nobody claims that the countries have anything to do with each other. Also, "then how could they speak with each other": just because two languages are related doesn't mean they are mutually-comprehensible. I can't understand any German whatsoever, even though German is the closest language to English. --Dbenbenn 19:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think Indoeuropean is what in Germany is called Indogerman. Does it say anything for you? Antifinnugor 20:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If the countries are on different places and there was no contact whatsoever at any time, and the nations are antropologically very different, why should then be the language be so related, that they form a group? This is one of the main wound points of the finno-ugric tale besides of the words' unsimilarity. Finns and Estonian are typically nordic, Hungarian are european mixed, lapps are european-asian mixed, all others are mongoloid. If they talked in the past, did they talk over mobile phones? Antifinnugor 20:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you lived in the 11-th century, when the Saxons entered England, you would be able to speak with them. (the saxons). With other words, in the past Germans and English could speak with each other, but later on the language developed differently. There must be a common past behind language relationship. Even today, Finns and Estonians understand each other, Dutch and German, Turkish and Azerbaidschans, Spanish and Italian, etc... Antifinnugor 20:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh! I read "indogerman" as "in-doger-man", not "indo-german"! I thought it was a proper name.

Is this serious or fun? Antifinnugor 21:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, I suspect that the Indo-European classification is based on more than just the similarities of a few words. I suspect there's a large body of evidence. But I'm not a linguistics expert, so I can't really say one way or the other.

I think, it is also based on the grammatically similarity of using 4..6 grammatical cases. The words are for me very similar, garden-garten, house-haus, father-vater, mutter-mother, nummer-number, numbers up to 12, which indicate 12-er number system, antropologically identical or very similar people, etc... Antifinnugor 21:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, the claim is that Finnish and Hungarian split off 5000 years ago. That's an awful long time. You should expect a lot more changes than between German and English. For what it's worth, Old English isn't comprehensible to English speakers, and it's only 1000 years old.

Finally, it isn't too hard to see how the Finns and Hungarians could diverge "anthropologically". They start out in the Ural mountains, then move to different geographic locations, and proceed to procreate with the people who live there. Languages and genes can be independent of each other.

Well, the problem is with that, that we are the Sumerians, the Skythas and the Huns, and have very little to do with Finns/Estonians. All our legends are of those origin. Hungarian writing appeared forst in the 11-th century, Finnish in the 16-th. We have nothing in common with their legends, even though we think, they are sympathetic people. Antifinnugor 21:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, we're really getting out of territory that I know anything about. I suggest that I'm not the right person to be talking about this with. --Dbenbenn 21:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have started a new page, Critic_of_Finno_Ugric_and_Uralic_language_Groups, where I list my objections. I am talking with you, because you actively deleted whatever I wrote onto the Finnougric or uralic page in the past, you remember, don't you? Antifinnugor 21:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I remember reverting some of your changes twice: [1] and [2]. I wouldn't say that I "actively deleted whatever [you] wrote". Also, both were on Finno-Ugric languages. I never reverted you on Uralic languages. Please be careful with your accusations. As I've said on your user talk page, I'm willing to help you with an "alternative viewpoints" or "criticisms" section if you want. (By the way, did you consider the suggestions I made there?) --Dbenbenn 21:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have never told, you are a main reverter, just one of those. I do not understand, why, since I always care for writing correct things, since I handle this subject for a longer time, but never mind. Antifinnugor 08:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] La La info box?

I have done that for "Pieces of Me", but I don't know if there's enough info to justify creating one for "La La" just yet. I think there ought to at least be a CD single released to have one of those. Everyking 22:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Presumably it will be released as a CD single, but for the time being it's still just a radio (and TV) single. It's still very new, after all. Everyking 00:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] Seems nothing happened, but...

Hello! Thanks for the modern pallet picture. I went to your page to see what kind of warehouse/logistics experience you had and I was attracted to the nano text editor screenshot, because of my research on the human aspects of interfaces (and most certainly not the programming aspects) which led me to the screenshot picture page. I noticed that you wanted previous versions of the picture destroyed, and I started doing so using the few administrator commands/links I have on my screen. At least I thought I was doing so. Instead I was advised that I had just done a revert! I checked on the Nano editor article and everything seems al right. Tel me if I missed something. --AlainV 02:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you reverted to the old, bad image. I reverted it back to the newer image. If you want to try again, please delete the first version, of size 14662 bytes.
I've worked in a warehouse for about four months now. I'm glad you liked the picture! My boss thought I was crazy photographing a pallet; I didn't even try to explain that it was for an encyclopedia article. I'm interested in human interface design, too. Allow me to relate a story on that topic: At work, one of my tasks is to "receive" shipments, which involves telling a computer system what we've gotten so we can pay for it. Until last week, we used a 70s-era mainframe terminal program. It was completely non-GUI; most commands were done with the function keys F1--F24.
Then we switched to a fancy new browser-based GUI system. One would think it would be a lot more usable, right? Well, now instead of hitting 2<Enter> and typing my "purchase order number", I have to click on a tiny little arrow to expand a text box to put it in.
There are two morals to this story:
  1. A business application should be designed to be easy to use, not easy to learn.
  2. A bad GUI is worse than a bad text interface. --Dbenbenn 03:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just erased the first one at the bottom of the pile, which was the first entered (size 14662 bytes). The system told me "20041106021316!Screen_shot_of_GNU_Nano_1.2.4.png" has been deleted. See deletion log for a record of recent deletions." but it does not show yet on that picture page. Sometimes the wiki database takes hours for updates to show. The pallet picture scaling things are on my page. --AlainV 04:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Warehouse

Oh I assume good faith, however I am seriously pissed at anyone deleting content from something barely a stub to begin with. Also the fact that said content has been there 5 months with 0 complaints, and no discussion was made on the talk page for the article before deletion was made, which is standard procedure.

Now as for your claim on the discussion page: "The sentence seemed vague to me, and didn't come with a reference." Why should there be a reference for something even you do not claim to be untrue? The fact is common knowledge, and therefore referencing for a single sentance seems rather pointless. Had I claimed something not in the public awareness, there would have been facts to back it up.

Granted I was overly harsh, and for that I appologize. However the overall point to wikipedia is to increase the knowledge of a subject, and to record what is known. Alkivar 07:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right, that was a silly objection on my part about the reference. Wikipedia in general lacks references. But this isn't a good thing! Just because something is common knowledge doesn't mean you shouldn't cite your sources.
Anyway, my main point was that this didn't look like a notable fact about warehouses. There are infinitely many true facts that Wikipedia doesn't include. Furthermore, it seemed to me only loosely relevant to the topic. (More relevant to the topic of raves.) I expressed these opinions in the typical way, not by asking permission on Talk:Warehouse, but by boldly editing. --Dbenbenn 17:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:Petersen.jpg listed for cleanup

Yes, Image:Petersen graph.png is better. Now, change all the uses of Image:Petersen.jpg to Image:Petersen graph.png and put Image:Petersen.jpg on images for deletion {{ifd}}. Also, add the text "Obsoleted by Image:Petersen graph.png" on its description page. — Kieff | Talk 04:27, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Done! --Dbenbenn 05:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] delete vs move

sure. the original page will just end up on WP:RFD, then. In my understanding, a move is there when the present title is possible, but a new title more appropriate. If there shouldn't even be an article under this title, there also shouldn't be a redirect. As for the edit history, well, it's not really worth keeping imho. AFU's article will have to be butchered an rebuilt from scratch anyway. dab (ᛏ) 16:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] sollog

why are you not allowing important and real articles on sollog on this site? as the page stands now it is nothing but a promotion for attacks by the city paper. there is serious discussion about sollog in the muslim community. Links to muslim scholars show they agree with him. There is a clear sollog connection to atta and terrorism. Sollog is a terrorist leave the info alone. Posted anonymously on my talk page by Selawj

Hi Selawj,
As you're new to Wikipedia, perhaps you don't understand the Neutral point of view. Regardless of the facts, we can't say that Sollog is a terrorist. At best, you can say "So and so authority has accused Sollog of terrorism." Citing some unknown scholar doesn't cut it. You might have more success discussing your points on the Sollog talk page. --Dbenbenn 19:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tables

Dbennben, first thanks for your keep vote. Here some critic on the fu/u pages, this is the first one of a series. FYI. Antifinnugor 20:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Both the finnougric and the uralic page contain wrong word tables.

 English   Finnish    Hungarian
  vein       suoni     ér
  tendon     jennä     ín
  father     isä       apa
  ancestor   esi-isä   õs

This is how it looks correctly. If the words in the table do not match the English ones, people are badly informed, and this is therefore a bad table. Also the English words after the Hungarian ones suggest, these are Hungarian words, which is absolutely confusing. If a vikipedia editor believes, that suoni and ín are somehow relatid, should try to prove that. Father and õs's relation is somewhat more believable by looking at the words, this can be also mentioned. Thank for fixing that. Antifinnugor 20:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First of all, you agreed that ér is not cognate with suoni. Since the table you're referring to is the table of cognates (I think?), the table you put above is not correct.
Secondly, the table of cognates came from the Encyclopedia Britannica, as [User:Hippophaë|] pointed out on Talk:Finno-Ugric languages. Unless he's lying (which I think is very unlikely) that constitutes sufficient "proof". (Unless you can find some reason to disbelieve the Britannica.) --Dbenbenn 23:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do not use or know the EB, therefore I have no idea of its quality. Antifinnugor 10:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I cannot find those words in EB. Can you? Antifinnugor 10:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
However, as a word or cognate list, the tables are INCORRECT. No matter, what they are for, they are incorrect. This is the level of "proof" and "tables", that finnugrists typically present. Additionally tales about "200 cognates" "similar grammar" and the like. The grammar list (typology) is in fact a collection of errors. I think, the wiki level should be higher, than that level. Antifinnugor 10:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Britannica is the most famous and well respected encyclopedia in the world. Its quality is not in question.
I saw and used the encarta from ms, I find its quality truely miserable. Is that based on eb? Antifinnugor 08:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Alas, I don't have access to a library for the time being, so I can't look it up. But I don't know of any reason to think the table of cognates is wrong; you haven't presented any evidence of that.
Once again very slowly: The Hungarian word ín has absolutely nothing to do with the English word vein, and these two words are in the same row. Do you understand, what is the problem? Antifinnugor 08:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Also the Hungarian word ős is in the same row as the English word father, even though ős does not mean father in Hungarian. Do you understand now the problem? Antifinnugor 08:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You write "No matter what they are for, they are incorrect." I'm a little baffled by that. They're supposed to be cognates. If you think they aren't, you should indicate a citation as your reason. --Dbenbenn 23:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please see above. Summarized: The problem is the English word in front of the row, that means something completely different, than the Hungarian word. The table is incorrect, as it is. Antifinnugor 08:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, the Encarta is not based on the Britannica. Encarta doesn't have a particularly solid reputation, as it is new and online-only.

The Hungarian word ín has absolutely nothing to do with the English word vein, and these two words are in the same row. Do you understand, what is the problem?: Again, besides your bare statement, I don't know of any reason to think that ín and suoni are not cognate. Your word is not sufficient evidence; if you want to convince anyone you'll have to provide a reference.

For me they sound very difficult and mean completely different things. Why should they be cognates? Has anybody proven that? Antifinnugor

The problem is the English word in front of the row, that means something completely different, than the Hungarian word.: as we've discussed before, the English word in the table is supposed to be a translation of the root word from which the modern word diverged. The fact that ős has changed meaning since it diverged from its Finno-Ugric root isn't relevant.

Well, the English wort vein indicates clearly a present meaning. Nothing says, that the table contains some phantasy diversions, that not only means diversion in form, but also mean diversion in meaning. Why should words change like that? Paper is patient, and keeps lot of nonsense, like this wild but unproven theories about word modifications. Besides that there existed never a proto finno-ugric language, bachman's phantasy imagines. Never. Antifinnugor 11:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So the dogma even gets more phantastic (nobody proved anything, as usual): the Finnish word suoni was originally ín (tendon), and got later the meaning vein. And, to make the thing more interesting, they invented the word jennä for vein, which now had no name after this strange meaning-modification. Why that strange modification? Not two characters are on the same position in those words, and they sound very different. Was the old Finnish person drunken and forgot his own language? Or the other way around? Why would anybody believe such phantastic, unbelievable tales? I could not see any prove, not the lightest for this tale. Have you seen any? If not, why do you believe in that strange theory? Antifinnugor 11:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I feel like I'm just repeating myself here, which isn't very fun. --Dbenbenn 08:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So am I. The table is incorrect, confusing, simply wrong. Wiki has bad quality here. Antifinnugor 11:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, the English wort vein indicates clearly a present meaning. Nothing says, that the table contains some phantasy diversions, that not only means diversion in form, but also mean diversion in meaning.: In fact, the paragraph before the table of cognates explains that "in general two cognates don't have the same meaning; they merely have the same origin. Thus, the English word in each row should be regarded as an approximation of the original meaning, not a translation of the other words."

I could not see any prove, not the lightest for this tale. Have you seen any?: If you want to understand the theory, I suggest you take a class in linguistics.

Dear Dbenbenn, linguistic is a logic science, or at least should be, if capable people are doing it. If you need a class in something, just to understand some simple cognates, then there is something wrong with those alleged cognates. As I presented you the German-English similarities, and they are clear for both of us, (father = Vater, mother = Mutter, one=ein, twelve=Zwölf, etc...) so should the similarities be presented in all other language families. Logic and clear. If the self styled "linguists" try to explain, that ín = suoni, (in English tendon and vein), or they have something in common, then they must be able to clearly explain that for a normal person. Antifinnugor

Wikipedia is not the place to prove or disprove a theory. That would be original research, which we don't do here. Instead, all we do is reflect the current state of knowledge. And the current expert consensus is that there is no serious objection to the Finno-Ugric language group. --Dbenbenn 20:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, these groups are the result of malevolent, defamative political forces, and have nothing in common with science. The connection and similarity among these languages is clearly there due to agglutination, nobody doubts that, but these mini and artificial groups simply do not exist, since Sumerian style agglutination with all its features, like possessive pronomes, missing grammatical gender and the like is common in a much larger group, like Turkish, Persian, Basque, Armenian and Sumerian and others.
The more people like hipo and mustafa, bachman and dingemanse try to prove, that these groups exist, the more aggressive they delete everything, that does not fit in this bad concept /their behaviour (deleting without thinking about it) shows also, with what kind of cards they play, up to the defamations, pasquale and dingemans uttered against any criticizer of this concept/, the clearer comes out, that these mini groups have no right to exist at all in this form, if language science should be a serious a logical science. It is that simple. Antifinnugor 13:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revert the Sollog page page

I did a lot of work on that article to make it balanced, I left in all the negative links and put in counter points to blance it out. The article as you reverted it is a joke, it is 90% biased Sollog bashing and un Wiki as others have noted in Discussion on Sollog. So put it back please, then start to discuss what you don't like. Thanks --Posted anonymously by Mediadog

[edit] Software problems?

Hi Fvw,

I've noticed in a few of your edits that characters such as - and € get replaced by ?. For example, see [3] and [4]. Possibly it's a problem with my browser (Firefox 1.0/Debian Linux) but I don't think so. Just wanted to point it out.

Dbenbenn 07:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a known problem, I'm claiming a firm not-my-fault though. Some non-standards-compliant browsers (MSIE, mainly) put codepage Windows-1252 characters in what they send even though the english wikipedia is ISO-8859-1. When I edit this, my browser recognises they're invalid characters, and replaces them with ?'s so as not to send invalid data. They should be replaced with either html &name; character entities, or for "smart quotes" with just plain regular quotes. Feel free to leave a link on my talk page when this happens though, I'll fix them up. --fvw* 08:01, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
Ah! I've also noticed edits to Talk:Sollog where you replaced others' quotes with “, etc. I wondered if you were just being absurdly pedantic! Glad to hear there was a more rational explanation. --Dbenbenn 08:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, that sounds like a problem that the Wikipedia software could automatically handle. If I submit an invalid character, it automatically gets translated to an HTML entity. --Dbenbenn 08:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Or it could be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax --Dbenbenn 08:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about the mess in Sollog...

...and thanks for your cleanup. I made a clumsy edit and then Wikipedia went down before I could do anything about it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary! Anyone can clean a messy addition; it's a lot more important to add the info in the first place. Thanks!
Perhaps a second example, on Sollog's supposed 9/11 prediction, since that gained him (a small amount of) media attention? --Dbenbenn 19:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I have the page open for editing for that exact purpose right now... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sollog Talk article in need of archiving

Hello, the Talk:Sollog article is in need of archiving. I don't know how to do that, but I see that you did it last time. Also, since it is difficult to follow the discussion on a given topic because there are so many topics there, would it be possible to have multiple talk pages? For example: Name/Pseudonyms, Predictions, Legal issues, Disputed following, Usenet activities, other. Johntex 17:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Update: some one has now told me how to archive the article. Johntex 18:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] about the Kristin Hersh article

I reverted the change you made to the Kristin Hersh article but came close to putting it back nearly the way you had it after looking at your examples on your own page of photos with links in the caption (so please excuse my initial reason in the article's History file). In Show Preview when I started to put it back your way, I saw again that it looked bad visually in terms of design in that particular article so I decided not to put the link back in. The blue link in the caption detracts visually from the black-and-white photo. The exact date of the photograph is not something I wanted to convey in the caption. I wanted that only documented in the photo description page. The only reason I put any date information at all in the caption was just to give a general idea of what period it was from; I almost just put the year and no month. She has had different looks different years, including some years where her hair was dyed black. Putting any date info into the caption was nearly an afterthought. I might have just put the name of the artist.

I appreciate your well-intended edit that you did for the reason of trying to get a link of the date into the article, but I feel this information was not necessary. Also, the photographer additionally has a credit in the References section; anyone clicking that link will see the date of the photos. I feel the photo has gotten more than enough attention to documentation in the photo description page listing dates, and putting the exact date with a link in the caption is overkill. I've already gone overboard in carefully documenting the permission and providing repeated links back to the photographer in both the photo description page and References area. Additionally the article is about a United States artist; U.S. date format was used everywhere else in the article, so that suddenly inserting a UK style date format into the caption also detracted from the article's internal consistency. For these reasons above, I reverted it but I didn't do it lightly. I am not trying to be ridiculous and stoop to some sort of pettiness so I wanted to explain myself.

Thanks for having had the interest to read the article. It is interesting to consider in the future what sort of information I should try to convey in captions. Perhaps you might have ideas and suggestions for me on this subject that will help me construct other articles in the future. Emerman 18:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Emerman, Such a long note for such a small change! Thanks for explaining your revert. You mentioned the "UK style date format". Perhaps you're unaware that 23 December and December 23 look exactly the same (edit this paragraph to see what I'm talking about)? You can set UK vs. USA style in your preferences. That's actually the reason why long dates always have to be linked. So the inconsistency wasn't visible to the user. Dbenbenn 20:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You're right, my comment is long, and when we're done with this discussion I'd be kind of glad if you ended up deleting it, as I hate hogging up people's talk page space; I don't really like leaving my comments up publicly for long but I also think I probably should let you do the deleting to your own talk page. As for the two dates looking exactly the same, now that I've gone to my Preferences area, I see what you mean, but this wouldn't help the average reader of Wikipedia from the public who doesn't have an account with preferences to set. That said, I now realize that you wouldn't know which style I was using without looking over the article in edit mode. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Based on your comment, I've just added links to the dates in the photo description page; I assume it should be done there too. Emerman 21:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh! I didn't realize how it looked to anonymous readers! That sounds like a bug in MediaWiki to me, though perhaps it's intentional, so the programmers don't have to choose one style over the other as the default. Dbenbenn 21:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(Me again! Hogging space here...) Yes, when I am writing articles I have the casual visitor in mind as the target audience; I'm picturing someone doing a search for info on a subject such as this artist, finding it in google and coming to wikipedia that way. This is how I first found wikipedia myself -- searching for info on a nutrition topic. On the other hand, I have a feeling that the first readers of this article are actually turning out to be avid wikipedians like yourself who take the time and trouble to read the article and actually are showing their interest by making a contribution, so I really do appreciate that you took the time to look at it; I think we all need to learn to appreciate fellow wikipedians (so often what one sees is negative comments from people like the one at the top of your talk page but you deserve appreciation for taking an interest in other articles) and I'm going to try to keep this in mind as I hang out here as a new person. Anyway, this topic is one that really is taking too much space on your page over a trivial topic, so have at it when you'ready to delete. :-) Emerman 05:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll archive my talk page after this discussion. I'm surprised you haven't made pages for Hersh's albums, like Hips and Makers. Perhaps you haven't discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums yet? Also, it would be cool if you could put up a (fair use) sample of Hersh's singing; see the end of Peter, Paul and Mary for an example. Dbenbenn 05:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, cool, I feel better since you're going to remove it. Personally I don't believe in making pages for albums because there is already Allmusic.com and there are too many albums in the world to write articles on each one of them, plus I think it's kind of stupid for me to spend time doing that when first there are tons of artists to write about -- instead, I deliberately do not add links to albums and typically remove red links to album titles when I see them in music articles -- you could easily waste tons of hard disk space if this place became a second allmusic.com database of every album on earth, and besides, people would just end up copying a lot of info from allmusic.com anyway to do that database. I deliberately haven't participated in that project yet and I certainly know about it. I will look at the fair use thing for singing that you mention but originally all I was trying to do was increase the article to be longer than one sentence as it was when I found it because I thought she deserved better than that. I have a lot bigger things to deal with first like write more details for the Throwing Muses, Tanya Donelly, 50 Foot Wave, Vic Chesnutt, John Doe, etc. articles related to this before spending time on things like that though. Do you write a lot of music articles here? If you want, the Vic Chesnutt, Grant Lee Phillips, John Doe and X articles somewhat related to Hersh could stand some help and I don't have time to spend on those yet -- I will first work on Tanya Donelly, 50 Foot Wave and Throwing Muses ones which have barely been started compared to what I did with the Kristin one. To me the idea of fair use samples of her voice seem like overkill since I have already linked to her official website which has mp3s and a video on the front page that people can use to hear samples -- but I will definitely look at the article you have mentioned. I don't really need help coming up with ideas of things to work on; what i need is time to work on what I've already taken an interest in working on. Writing a better article for Throwing Muses will require a lot of article reading and referencing, for example, same for Tanya Donelly -- that is time consuming. I don't even have time to do that yet. I still have things I need to do to improve what I've started, having seen some of the other more developed articles here like the Duran Duran one that was featured recently. Emerman 05:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Citation style of article

My source for using the paragraph symbol (which you thought was a page number) was the part of the Cite Sources page which tells us that wikipedia is using APA style generally. At the bottom of that page is a link to Citation Style Guides, and if you go there, you can click at the top to APA style. That page includes the following example:

For electronic sources that do not provide page numbers, use the paragraph number, if available, preceded by the ¶ symbol or abbreviation para. If neither is visible, cite the heading and the number of the paragraph following it to direct the reader to the quoted material.

(Myers, 2000, ¶ 5)

(Beutler, 2000, Conclusion section, para. 1)


Hope this helps you understand the citation style I used. Emerman 06:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)Emerman 06:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note, the text above was changed after I replied below. See [5] for the original.
I will not be editing the article in question again, and I see no purpose in continuing this conversation. Goodbye, Emerman. Dbenbenn 06:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I edited my own comment because I was not finished with it at the time you decided to reply and I do not edit your comments, just my own, though you have edited my title to my own comment. It was not done for any particular reason other than to attempt to end with a civil tone by me. I was trying to address with an upsetting situation where you had made edits to footnotes and made them completely inaccurate and for what seemed to me at first like it was for no reason. I have since attempted to discuss the footnote issue in other forums so as not to confuse anyone else and to try to emapthize and understand why you did that instead of just be annoyed; I decided to suggest they add the example I used. My point in writing you wasn't to try to get into some feud with you where you start trying to open up files on people to punish them like the other thirty-something links you have above to someone else you are having some sort of feud with. I think instead of memorializing old arguments or adding little tweaks to articles someone else researched, better time could be spent starting new articles. I thought you said we were through talking and you were going to archive this when we're done, so I hope to hear we're some day done. My edit was not done to annoy anyone; it was to explain nicely the problem by spending time finding the style and explaining it to you. I was not trying to make you look like you reacted "for nothing" if that's what you thought.
Can't we move on to other things since you said you would archive it and delete it? It's the holidays and I'd like to spend my time working on articles instead of worrying about this. I put out effort to add a section you mentioned and to hunt and find you my style reason as well as addressed the issue in a citation style area so it's not like I haven't taken you seriously and tried to understand you. I'm sorry for the problem we're having but I hope we can just move on some day and not grace each other's talk pages any more. Emerman 01:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)