User talk:ENpeeOHvee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, and welcome to my talk page. Please sign your messages here with a ~~~~. Since this page is in my user space, I reserve the right to remove comments which I have already read as I see fit. They might also be moved to an archive or some other sub-page. If you would like to browse through older comments, you may view this page's history and check the sub-page links.
Also, please try and avoid leaving hostile and/or threatening messages on my talk page. If there's an issue you disagree with me on or a point you'd like me to consider, you can simply bring those up to me in a pleasant tone. I may not always agree with you, but I'll certainly be a lot more likely to consider what you're saying than if you're treatening me. I'm a reasonable person if you're reasonable with me. Also, to be quite blunt, it's not that big a deal to me even if you do somehow get some administrator to block me over some beurocratic BS. I can easily edit on another screen name, another IP, even another computer. I don't have time at this point to spend a large percentage of my life on Wikipedia - I just help out and try to imporve things where I can, so I'm not investing a lot in the reputation or persona or this screen-name.
So just treat me with the basic respect that a human being deserves and I'll do the same in return. Thank you ENpeeOHvee 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Mumbo Jumbo
For some assorted irrelevant silliness, and talk about this talk page, see User talk:ENpeeOHvee/Incivility and meta-talk
[edit] New talk
[edit] Golden photo
:-) Thanks for the extra "note the photo" comment -- W0lfie 02:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- No prob. I think it's a good idea in general to note that on panoramic photos (and the directions if possible), because some people won't know and may think it's all facing the same direction. ENpeeOHvee 05:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- PS - Nice photo! (just saw that you took it) ENpeeOHvee 05:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] All the lonely people
That's not what the song is called. please do not restore it again, or you will break the three revert rule and may be blocked. It's got nothing to do with "younger" fans, lots of people get the name wrong but that's no excuse to place the words "All the lonely people" next to it. It's still not the songs name. That is not encyclopedic. What if we did that for every song? Would you want to refer to "A day in the life" as "I read the news today" or to "Smells like teen spirit" as "With th3e lights out it's less dangerous"? We can't just go reffering to songs by their most recognisable line. That would be undesireable and untidy.--Crestville 13:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please do not leave threatening messages like that. If you want to discuss an issue with me then that's fine, but it's no more appropriate for you to be threatening me than it would be if I were threatening you. As for your questions, while you seem to have asked them rhetorically (obviously thinking the obvious answer is "no"), my answer to all those questions is an unqualified "YES!" For songs with very unintuitive titles (especailly if none of the key words in the title are even mentioned once in the lyrics of the song), Wikipedia absolutely should note the title that most people would think the song has. For example, Bob Dylan had a popular song with the absolutely insane title of "Rainy Day Woman # 12 & 35," but most everyone who hears that song and goes looking for more info about it thinks it's called "Everybody Must Get Stoned." You say it's not encylopedic to note things like this, but I think it's absolutely neccessary to make Wikipedia user-friendly. Just as we have redirects and disambig pages, and disambig links at the top of pages, for common mis-spellings and to clear up redundancies and conceptual confusion, this sort of thing (in spite of being "untidy") is neccessary when it comes to these sort of songs with crazy titles. ENpeeOHvee 07:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- As one who has also reverted your "All the Lonely People" edit in the past, let me add: 1) The first words to "Eleanor Rigby"'s first and last verses are "Eleanor Rigby" - hardly comparable to "Rainy Day Woman #12 & 35", and 2) Crestville has been in no way threatening to you in his message, please don't go around suggesting he has. Cheers, Ian Rose 09:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not leave threatening messages like that. If you want to discuss an issue with me then that's fine, but it's no more appropriate for you to be threatening me than it would be if I were threatening you. As for your questions, while you seem to have asked them rhetorically (obviously thinking the obvious answer is "no"), my answer to all those questions is an unqualified "YES!" For songs with very unintuitive titles (especailly if none of the key words in the title are even mentioned once in the lyrics of the song), Wikipedia absolutely should note the title that most people would think the song has. For example, Bob Dylan had a popular song with the absolutely insane title of "Rainy Day Woman # 12 & 35," but most everyone who hears that song and goes looking for more info about it thinks it's called "Everybody Must Get Stoned." You say it's not encylopedic to note things like this, but I think it's absolutely neccessary to make Wikipedia user-friendly. Just as we have redirects and disambig pages, and disambig links at the top of pages, for common mis-spellings and to clear up redundancies and conceptual confusion, this sort of thing (in spite of being "untidy") is neccessary when it comes to these sort of songs with crazy titles. ENpeeOHvee 07:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If that's the way you feel then you need to seriously re-think your idea of wikipedia. You may like to note that your restoration has been reverted again and a complaint left by feline1. Doesn't look like you've got much support. BTW, I just call it Rainy Day Woman.--Crestville 09:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jam with Buddy Holly.jpg
I haven't done anything with this image, currently used in Buddy Holly, but please note that it is not an album cover even though you've tagged it as such. Also, recent Wikipedia policy states that magazine/book covers can't be used unless you are discussing the actual work in question. You may want to revert back to the old B&W photo used in the article, even if it isn't that great. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I thought it was an album cover - may have been mistaken. Hope we can keep it at least in the interum, as it seems crazy to not have a real, in the flesh picture of such an important musician. I'd think there should be something out there of him in the public domain... ENpeeOHvee 07:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Dolemite.jpg
Hello, ENpeeOHvee. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Dolemite.jpg) was found at the following location: User:ENpeeOHvee. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BUDDY HOLLY CRICKETS.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BUDDY HOLLY CRICKETS.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
