User talk:Dume7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Edit summaries

Hello, per Help:Edit summary, it would help greatly if you fill out edit summaries when making changes to articles, so that other contributors can see what (and ideally, why) you're doing without having to look at diffs. Thanks. -/- Warren 18:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Concert2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Concert2.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned

Sorry that you removed content multiple times and were banned. If you notice someone else vandalizing in the future, please report it to WP:AIV immediately, whether or not you are logged in. Thank you. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Sorry that you removed content multiple times and were banned.": I'll take that as backhanded sarcasm. Oh well. Dume7 23:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, if a mistake was made, I do apologize. If you find yourself caught in the crossfire in the future, please email me and I can correct things. P.S. the most recent vandals to the Zeppelin article have been blocked as well. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Dume7 16:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nietzsche Article

Hello, Dume, I noticed your comment to Jossi, and I've written some to him, which apparently led to the protection of the article (read "Nietzsche" on his talk page). In any case, my statements on the Nietzsche talk page above "Protected" are my views on how we should go about editing the article. You can share your thoughts on the matter here (or at "Protected"). — ignis scripta 15:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards removing at least some of the quotations. It would reduce article length considerably. They're great quotes, make no mistake, but don't people come to this page so they won't have to read Nietzsche's work? They want a consise, accurate, summing up of his views. Besides, those that want a full fleshing out will have already read his works, and for those that haven't we have links to the full texts. Or maybe we should make better explanations of his views so won't have need for quotes. What do you think? Dume7 15:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My comments at "Protected" lean toward this as well. It sounds like a good going to me. — ignis scripta 16:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So, who else do we have to convince? That Pejero (sp?) fellow has a bad habit of quoting 'The Will to Power' as an accurate representation of Nietzsche's sentiments on Jews and women. What should be done about that? Dume7 16:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Petrejo does not seem to be an active participant in the development of the article and as such is an element that can be disregarded as a negligible problematic that led to this situation first of all—I may appear all too biased, but Petrejo's comments lead me toward this prejudice. — ignis scripta 16:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Are we ready to place a request for unprotectection, or would you prefer to leave it as is? Dume7 16:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we're ready to move on with this. — ignis scripta 16:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I should have mentioned I wrote the request for unprotect. — ignis scripta 16:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do it, but failed. I'm new to wikipedia in case you haven't noticed. lol Dume7 16:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Careful with edits

See Wikipedia Project Musicians for guidelines with regards to what information is req'd in the project's infoboxes. Also read WP:NOR with regards to Wikipedia's policy regarding original research. If fact an even better link is WP:POL which contains all of Wikipedia's policies. If you need any assistance just ask. For now re-adding incorrect info into articles with disregard for proper policies/guidelines will not result in a positive editing experience. Anger22 00:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

PS nice catch on the Bach article. The vandals lengthy hard work lasted all of 12 minutes. Anger22 00:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish you would specifically tell me what you object to and why, rather than constantly referencing loose policy guidelines. At the moment, I don't what your talking about.71.76.219.92 00:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies aren't loose. They are just that...policy. And until you read and understand them it will be very difficult for you to understand what is wrong with your edits. You obviously have something to contribute but, without policy understanding/following, eventually you will just end up blocked. As for your block the other day I am of the suspicion that you had a bowser error. You are a policy evader, but a blatant vandal/article blanker you have not been. Perhaps it's relating to the same issue you brouht to my attention a few weeks ago where you were editing but you weren't seeing your own edits show up when you refreshed the page? And since we are talking about Wikipedia policies....before you read any of the editing policies perhaps you should read WP:SOCK You've ignored very clear edit summaries about your edits under a logged in user name and as an IP. Sockpuppet editing will definately get you blocked/banned if you persist in doing it.(it is so obvious I am suprised an Adminhasn't nailed you on it yet) I willcome to your defence should you get blocked simply for another browser error again. But I will not be able to help if you continue to ignore the rules and maintain your current habits. Anger22 00:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand the policies and I interpret them differently than yourself. Whether I had a browser error or not (I probably did), the admin who banned me should have had the courtesy to look at my contributions to examine if I truly had ill-intent, which I clearly do not. i do not consciously sockpuppet edit--it is very difficult to keep this account logged on, and sometimes I am not signed in when I think I am. In addition, sometimes I simply forget to log in--it isn't as though I'm orchestrating some kind of nefarious scheme to confuse people. Dume7 01:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had the browser login error before(many moons ago) I got rid of it by adding the Wikipedia site to my trusted sites list. After that I never had a problem. Do you use Firefox/google toolbar combo. Apparently that has a tendency to chop articles off at the knees. Help might be found at the Wikipedia help desk. too. Good luck! Anger22 01:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. If you find yourself intermittently being logged out, you may want to try connecting to our secure Wikimedia server at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:Userlogin -- please note however that to log in you will need a browser that is SSL-enabled and can accept security certificates. Just a thought. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what works. Thanks for the advice, both of you. Dume7 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prog Rock

Maybe put it to a talk page vote? On Wikipedia concensus always rules(sometimes incorrectly) But WP:CON is always the best answer when it comes to differing opinions on articles. Anger22 15:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical facts should not be democratically legislated in and out of articles. Frankly, I think I have deeper knowledge base when it comes to this band than the vast majority of those who would vote in such a poll--its kind of like letting a bunch toddlers tell a college professor what his curriculum will be. I wish you would simply discuss with me, especially since you're the only one who has formally objected. Dume7 15:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the "World Music" I've always said LZ were doing world music 15 years before Peter Gabriel and Paul Simon got all the glory for "opening up world music to a wider audience"...as it's always put in the press. ASf or the prog thing...when I saw LZ in 1973(twice) and again in '75...there was nothing prog about them. It has more to do with Prog being a visual aspect as much as a music aspect. Robert Plant even said once that, if it were his way, Led Zeppelin would never look/sound like ELP(who he hated)..refer ing them as "preening poofs". But, as I said, I talk page concensus is always a good place to start. Anger22 16:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The premise you're putting forth is that ELP is necessarily an archetype for prog rock--it isn't. The "progressiveness" of a band is unrelated to volume or instrumentation; in large part it's philosophical: the idea that popular music and "respectable" art music can be unified--that's what separates Led Zeppelin from their followers (like Def Leppard or Guns N' Roses, for example), and that's the whole purpose behind the facade of using the old blues songs and combining them with the opposing mysticism. Blues is just a facade that they hide behind until they jump out and shock people people with some sort of mystical oddity (album sleeves that change colors, the symbols, the pagan lyrics, the allegations of satanism, the "curse"), unlike ZZ Top, for instance. Can't you see the irony of a band singing African American blues songs from the late 1800s while dressing like warlocks? They planned all of that. Dume7 16:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

+ 2 midgets dancing around a 3 foot high stone obelisk. I didn't really put an ELP premise forth. I just read Plant's comments in an interview. In the same interview he lambasted David Coverdale for being a poncy poseur and a year later Page did an album with him??? It's a wonder they get along at all? Anger22 16:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That was Black Sabbath (over the years I've come to the conclusion that Black Sabbath is like the mildly retarded twin brother of LZ)--Led Zeppelin built their fake Stonehenges with expert craftmanship, lol. Anyway, have I made any headway in convincing you of this prog thing? If not, I'd like to hear your arguments. Dume7 16:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've browsed every site(that I can find) dedicated to progessive rock. So far I've found none. As with WP:CON where concensus should be reached, Wikipedia's other anchor of validity is WP:CITE. Your dislike of concensus is 180 degrees to Wikipedia's entire goal..."that everyone can edit". It's not your article(see WP:OWN) and other people will have differing opinions than you, me or the next batch of editors to come after us. Prog rock is perfectly fine...if it has a citation...which right now it doesn't. So, for now, it's your personal POV which again goes against Wiki's entire philosophy. As for you constant rv of the infobox to an incorrect format you should read page which sets out the guidelines for use of the box. IF you wish to alter it that's OK. But to do that you have to A)Join the project and B) Get concensus(that Wikipedia word that you dislike) from the other members for changes to the way the box is intended for use. Wikipedia policies/guidelines weren't created for fun or some kind of joke. They are there to maintain some level of consistant quality within the project. Ignoring them or interpreting them to suit your own POV is certainly not the answer. But unless you can follow them then I won't be able to assist you. So, as per Wikipedia's philosophy...find a valid ref for Prog and it can stay....get the musician project to change their guidelines for the infobox and the notable instruments info can stay. It's just that easy. Good luck! Anger22 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:DonnaReed.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Please do not delete content from talk pages. They should be properly archived. --Chaffers (talk)/(contributions) 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)