User talk:Kerrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my Talk Page. If you feel I've made a mistake that you'd like to discuss feel free to do so, but please in a nice and calm manner, I don't care much for arguments.

Also, in discussions here on my talk page, I will only reply here, so I suggest that you watch this page or check it regularly as you await my reply(ies). Thanks!

Contents

[edit] Randomness

In relation to your spelling edits to the page; you do realise that "bahaviour" and "realise" are perfectly legitimate English spellings? Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. "Behaviour" is a an actual spelling of the word, for British English. However, I cannot find the word "realise" in the British dictionary, nor in the American dictionary. If you would like to give me a link to a legitimate dictionary that has the word "realise" spelled with the 's', by all means do so and I will step down. Kerrow 03:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Dictionary.com gives mention to the British spelling in its definition of the word, 'realize'. However, you may have trouble finding the word in a dictionary such as your standard Oxford English Dictionary. The reason for this can be found here. Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 04:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright then, thanks very much for letting me know about that. In the future I'll do my best to be more careful about spellings and whatnot. Sorry for the trouble I might have caused you. Kerrow 13:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:R.E.M.

No probs. I'd no idea what you or I had done (and the lack of signature on your comment didn't help!), but the template's history refreshed my memory. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Muckers

Hi thanks for the edits which have improved the page. However, I am confused as to why you think that some of the external links were irrelevant? The Muckers are fans of the football (known as soccer in USA) team, Blackpool FC. And therefore links to Blackpool FC are surely totally relevant? The other link which was to another football club, fair enough, but links to the team that The Muckers are fans of should be there do you not think? Thanks Tangerines 22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please direct me to the edits you are talking about? I don't recall ever having edited that page. Thank you. Kerrow 22:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
AAAAAAAAARGH, Please excuse me, somehow I have clicked on your name by accident, it was indeed another user, so please feel free to delete this!!! apologies!!! Tangerines 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry over it. We all make mistakes. I don't think we're supposed to delete talk pages, so I'll leave this up, but happy editing elsewhere to you. Kerrow 23:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professional review ratings

The last one I posted is a non-staff review but it's specified that is an "APPROVED" review. Isn't that enough?

Check it, please!


Just a question, are you the creator of the article?


Thanks a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinese lucky strike (talk • contribs)

No, I didn't make the article.. Though whoever added all of the large, and unsifted history section should be shot. It was copied word for word from the band's history page.... Really aggravating. And I don't see any allowance for approved reviews on WP:ALBUM#Non-professional, sorry to say. I don't mean that it's a bad review, but it's a lot easier if time isn't wasted over some inconsequential review; as no doubt someone will come along and remove it later like they already did before. Just forget about it. Kerrow 04:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fear of a Blank Planet

I wrote

Hey, I was wondering if you could provide a link or citation for the review you added. I don't mean to say that I doubt you, but the review is liable to get removed if it doesn't have proper documentation that it actually exists. I tried looking on their website myself and couldn't find it. See WP:ALBUM#Professional_reviews for more details. Thanks! Kerrow 13:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The review is in the Metal Hammer magazine. It's not on the internet, but on paper. Hole in the wall 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
If you still have the magazine you should have no trouble writing up a citation to be included in the references section. Kerrow 01:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It might be a little bit of trouble, as I have no idea what I woulkd write or how to create a reference... I still haven't grasped that part of the Wiki-Code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hole in the wall (talk • contribs)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nostalgia Factory.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nostalgia Factory.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 (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Porcupine Tree FoaBP.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Porcupine Tree FoaBP.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up Template talk:Infobox Musical artist discussion

Please assume good faith and do not attack other editors. I feel that you should adjust your behaviour. Now this may offend you, but my sole intention is to provide you with feedback, and improve the project by improving its contributors. Thank you for reading WP:AGF and WP:NPA. -- Pepve (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read here in regards to your allegations. On a less formal response to your concerns about my behavior, I would prefer that you spend your time trying to improve Wikipedia instead of trying to improve me. I was trying to discuss something that I perceived to be flawed.
Now, you presented arguments such as "several arguments have been given", and "several thoughtful reasons for it have been given". Backtracking a little further.. "new readers may not yet know that the bold faced part of the first sentence is the exact band name" (there's one actual reason), and before that "most (if not all) infoboxes have this repetition" (yes, but statement doesn't serve to advance a point). The only argument offered by a party other than yourself prior to my 'offensive comments' was that Wikipedia's Manual of Style for infoboxes indicates that name fields are required. That doesn't rule out discussing the issue on a talk page where people had already been discussing particular parts of the infobox including the name field. (For any interested parties, discussion is at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Name field of infobox (this isn't about logos)). I don't want to argue over it anymore. I can accept that some things won't be changed. However, since you wish to beat a dead horse, here:
  • Your "several arguments" were nonexistent. I cannot count more than 2 that were stated in opposition to my idea: clarity, and prevalence of the name field in other infoboxes. I rebutted both points several times.
  • Any and all 'offensive' comments that I made were reasonable considering your tendency to avoid progressive discussion in favor of vague yet dismissive responses.
I was well within my rights to request that someone offer more conclusive argument telling me I'm wrong. You, however, have violated WP:NPA per above link by accusing me of lacking good faith. It took very good faith to not be more "offensive" in responding to 'arguments' such as "several arguments have been given... I feel they stand up very well".
Now, I am sure that you meant well by all of this, but please refrain from entrenching yourself any deeper into a futile discussion. I have never made an edit that served to hurt Wikipedia and never plan to. I ask that you assume in me the good faith that you preach. Kerrow (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nostalgia Factory.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nostalgia Factory.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology edit reverted

Sorry, but I have reverted your chronology edit since Wikipedia:Albums#Chronology says studio albums, compilations, singles and EPs and even live can be listed in the chronology. However, it says live albums are usually excluded, but check that it doesn't says it is something obligatory. The timeline was taken from The complete Steven Wilson discography, please, check that source anytime you need to modify any Porcupine Tree/Steven Wilson discography related. Steven Wilson himself on his official site proposed that pdf document as a reliable source for his chronologically listed works. Don't feel offended for the undo. Answer to me if you disagree with this or have any alternative idea. Synesthetize (talk)

I was working with a different set of articles when I saw that provision and decided that it might be best to incorporate it in the Porcupine Tree discography. I'm not offended, the issue barely matters in the scope of the PT WikiProject. My decision was only based on my opinion that it is somewhat confusing to include singles and EP's among studio albums, especially when the singles and/or EP's are not particularly notable in relation to the actual albums. I was planning on going through later and including separate discographies for non-studio albums. If you still disagree, I won't argue with you. It's of no huge concern to me. Kerrow (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, and its quite logical, I just think that this order is appropriate since it's a chronology box, that means chronoligical order is what really matters there, any reader looking for an organized list of PT albums should go to Porcupine Tree discography. Though not disposable is the idea of building a separate chronology for albums that stand out of the main chronology. Thanks for understanding. Synesthetize (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)