User talk:LimoWreck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, LimoWreck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] German Rock

Hi, why did you reverse my changes of this article (German Rock)? It costed me a lot of work to add those bands and this list isn't fake or wrong at all - Actually I copied many of those bands from the German Wikipedia article about German Rock (Deutschrock). So why did you change this again?

[edit] Belgian Ebony Shoe

Hi Limo, sorry I changed your useful additions. Actually I thought Ebony shoe was given for the year and not the season... I'll change that in the article. There's still much to do in the football articles so, feel free to add some info here and there. Thanx again for the correction, Julien Tuerlinckx 13:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Club Brugge

Hi again. I saw you added the squad to the club brugge article. This is a good job. However, the standard for squad representation has been set up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Clubs. You can retrieve the template at any Belgian (except Standard) and Italian clubs or at some English ones. If you have the time to do this, it would be quite nice. Thanx, Julien Tuerlinckx 14:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hep. Thanx for changing the squad. I removed the Polish flag for Klukowski as we decided to keep only one (I hope I kept the right one). If you like, you can create a new category Category:Club Brugge K.V. players and add all the past and present players in that category (have a look at Football World Cup 1998 (squads), Football World Cup 1994 (squads) and Football World Cup 2002 (squads)). Julien Tuerlinckx 11:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind. I did it for Brugge and Standard too. But if you like there is still much to do in Belgian football. Nice job on the Dutch portal. Cheers, Julien Tuerlinckx 16:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hi! thanx again for your work on belgian football (especially in the nl version). Just wanted to ask you if you could try to add an edit summary when you make edits so that other people know what changes you brought to the article. I know it's boring but I admit it's quite useful. Julien Tuerlinckx 19:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah actually that's what I do too (the diff thing, and by the way I'm quite sure that's what we all do) but it could permit me to avoid doing that when you just added the [[nl:...]] to the article, esp. when you do that for several articles the same day. Anyway, I used to never add edit summaries esp. on little watched pages like those on Bel. foot (as you said) and talk pages and I still forget it sometimes so I can't "throw you the stone" (if this means something). Finally, I admit I can't wait to read other people prose about this topic so be bold when you will be writing stuff in the en-en.

[edit] Belgian record

I had noticed the remark but never found time to look for a source to check and then forgot about it. I see that you did look for it and Planet World Cup is a nice one indeed. Maybe we can try something like "Belgium has the longest streak of qualifying for World Cups via the normal/usual^1 qualifying tournament, with six." And the 1 would refer to the same remark reworded (and maybe plus the fact they qualified as winners in 1986). Anyway I'll let you manage that.Julien Tuerlinckx 18:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation request

Hi. I wrote the article Regent Parrot mostly by translating the Dutch article at nl:Bergparkiet. There were some words etc. where my Dutch let me down, and those remain commented out. I'd appreciate it if you could edit the article and finish the translation. Thanks for your time and attention. Cheers, Tomertalk 09:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in on it and for the additional information. I hope you don't mind if I call on you again. :-) Tomertalk 20:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dunk meister

I responded to your common on my talk page, I was going to jsut paste it here but figured its better to have the wonle conversation in one place. Dalf | Talk 18:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: signatures

From the top of my talk: For a number of reasons, ... this user signs with five tildes, not four. Thanks for your attention. 18:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gfdl

Tried to push my article? There is no way I would push my articles unless I made money from that, something which gfdl is not about. Thepcnerd 02:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

/wangi 09:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:High Icelandic

There are several issues here. First off the definition of vandalism. According to official policy, NPOV disputes are not vandalism. That is not to say that the edits being made by the user involved should stay, or are appropriate.

I removed that report from WP:VIP because of the above, combined with there being no need to issue an immediate block. Adding it to the CVU watchlist probably wouldn't help much, as the CVU mostly looks out for so called 'blatant' vandalism, i.e. vandalism that is obvious at a glance. In this case more digging into the articles history is required. I've added the article to my personal watchlist, and I'd be happy to help keep it clean if possible (I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'll try and read the article properly and be a neutral party in the matter).

I am sorry to say the RfC's and similar processes (which are the correct ones in content dispute cases) can often fail. As I said above I'll try and look more closely at this article and give further assistance where possible. Possibly of use in this situation is requests for page protection (asking for semi-protection to prevent IPs editing the article), however that generally only gets applied in extreme cases, when an article is under heavy attack.

Final point of note, WP:VIP has a rather bad backlog (all sections had backlogs of reports to beginning of February), as unfortunately a lot of admins don't pay much attention to it. I've been attempting to clear the backlog, once that is fully done I should be able to take more time examining individual reports. Feel free to ask any further questions/add comments. Petros471 11:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed your report from WP:VIP again, as the article seems to have calmed down for now, and you've got my attention (to be honest I don't think you're going to get much more from VIP). I'd be quite willing to report vandalism to the article if any occurs, however any remaining content issues should continue to be discussed on the articles talk page. As always feel free to message me on my talk page if you want any help. Petros471 20:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tawkerbot2 and the reversion of your edit(s)

Hello, LimoWreck. You may have noticed User:Tawkerbot2 reverted one or more of your edits and perhaps left a message on your talk page. Wikipedia recently experienced a database malfunction, causing Tawkerbot2 to misidentify legitimate edits; hence the reversion of your edit(s) and the message. The bot has been temporarily disabled until the problems are rectified. Thanks. —Wayward Talk 18:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middlesbrough F.C.

Why did you remove my match analysis of the UEFA cup final, it conformed to npov, was a statemnt of actual fact on what happened, it is relevant to the article and as far as I can see conforms to any other Wikipedia rules. Philc TECI 21:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

All I read was "Middlesbrough sucked" , line after line after line... Now, i don't care about that club, but such a lenghty useless description doesn't fit in an encyclopedic history section of a football club. --LimoWreck 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Thae fact is they did, they played appalingly, coming from someone who supported them through this campaign, anyone who saw that match would have known there is no nice way to say how they played. Though I cannot find any examples on the en wiki right now, on de wiki articles for example [1] have acheived FA status by writing detailed match reports, so unless you can come up with a good reason why it should not be there, I am going to put it back. Philc TECI 21:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
An extended match report should be part of an article about the final or the cup, not on the clubs history. And I suggest you wait a few weeks before writing such report, when your first disappointment after the match is over. There already even is a section of the article destined for memorable matches, to avoid the history section getting messed up with overdone reports. No need to add that report twice. --LimoWreck 21:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, My point of view is fairly impartial I think as even though I supported boro for the campaign, it was for the english game, and not for them. So I'll add it to the cup I guess after comparing it to a few other reoprts for accuracy. Philc TECI 22:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] NEU! not Neu!

The name of the band is NEU! Which are the typographic conventions that are mentioned in the article? Thank you. skysurfer 19:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's some sort of typographic habit used by the band, I believe it's correctly mentioned in the article's introduction? I know there's some discussion on wikipedia on typographic conventions, esp. bands using caps all the time etc vs. wikipedia not using too much unconventional article names... (should be found somewhere in the wikipedia namespace) --LimoWreck 20:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic music

The "Iskhur guide to electronic music" recently has been reported as a sort of hilarious set of misleading information. I dont have time now to give you details, I'll be back tomorrow, I'm busy with my "real" life. In the meantime, if you are really interested in electronic music, I hope you will enjoy my contribution, that are FACTUAL and not POV. Brian Wilson 17:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Iskhur's guide IS hilarious, but it IS used as one of the well-known "overviews" of the more commerciel-pop-oriented guides (and more dance-related music or something like that); just my experience with people with different interests. Of course, it doesn't claim to be THE guide, nor to describe everything about electronic music (esp. < 80s and topics outside the pop-genres). But that's why it's just added as a small "see also" link at the bottom; and not one of the main articles to look at. --LimoWreck 18:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


To me it seems that it is used as the main guide for too many articles. In other words, Ishkur's POV is becoming a sort of NPOV standard for WP interested in these topics; I guess it goes far beyong the purposes of the author of that website. see you tomorrow, bye . Brian Wilson 18:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Rada

I have have afd this article Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 13:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Electronic Music

Thank you for correcting my edit, actually it was unintentional, because as you see on my edit note, I was willing to delete only that POV about M. Jackson. Anyway I am sure that the article is overstating the importance of Techno; in addition, the article should clearly state the diffence from "electronic" as technique, and "electronic" as style, content and context. but at the moment I am not planning to change it. Brian Wilson 00:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the reader will notice an evolution from the meaning of the world electronic through the decades, so I think it's quite balanced. The word "electronic" can hint at different ideas, but well, the meaning of the word might have changed a bit through the years... so be it. The Techno part (whatever Techno means here, well whatever any genre means) has some importance, as since the 80s/90s genres like that are linked to "electronic music", regardless of what other definitions some people might have. So, as long as people don't keep pushing any more techno/house/whatever POV in the sections describing the 90s and so in, I think it's restricted to a minimum at the moment... --LimoWreck 00:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm sure it's not well balanced, but I will not change it for now, I will try to improve different articles so that house/techno/psybient/illbient/chillout fans will not become frustrated abruptely. It's really like a sort of drug for them, they claim that "their music" deserves the status of electronic music so that their "heroes" will have a place in history of music, together with Stockhausen, Cage, Tangerine Dream, Kraftwerk, Pink Floyd, Brian Eno. Possibly they even they hate disco music. Brian Wilson 01:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether we like it or not, what's seen as "electronic music" today is the wide range of pop/techno/drum'n'bass/house/modern ambient music/some jazz-inspired but simpler music/etc... at least, that's the music that's succesful both commercially and in underground and will be remembered to some extent (and as far as I know, it's far from all nightclub-dj-music or something like that); and which contrasts to other styles nowadays "traditional" rock line-ups, more acoustic music, more r&b/hiphop, etc... (although everyone uses electronics nowadays)... You don't find the Stockhausens, Kraftwerks, TD, ... nowadays that make large revolutionary impacts by experimenting with electronics. Although there might be artists who try to experiment further, they don't make up what the word "electronic music" means nowadays. We might like it or not, but that's how things change... --LimoWreck 10:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Or maybe I am right, in that case, in some years people will definitely realize that electronics in music is just a "performing and recording technique" among other ones, not a sort of "new language", a "new philosophy" or a new style or a new genre. One day, synthpop will be called just pop, and so on.Brian Wilson 11:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sort things out

We probably should try and agree on what is true non-sense mate... Why deleting Dutch versions (existing and official versions) to French names on any page related to Belgium? Amaulestraat is a correct name, i.e. Astridpark as well. De Rode Duivels too. I can understand I was wrong with editing Anderlecht's old violet kit (I really didn't know it had switched on to black!), so that won't be done again, but double language is allowed in Belgium as far as I'm concerned, so I guess we should agree on editing BOTH versions (French and Dutch) when referring to official names (streets, stadiums, etc.) in Belgium. Why not? Is Dutch non-sense and French always making sense? I don't agree. I could agree that adding only Dutch versions would be unfair, but the opposite is wrong as well, don't you think? Let's add BOTH. It's Koning Boudewijnstadion as well as Stade Roi Baudoin, isn't it? So let's add BOTH the versions. Tell me what you think about it. Gianmaria Framarin 17:36 2 June 2006

[edit] Anderlecht

On my Italian page I found out the Dutch name of Anderlecht, so I thought this was just another case of double language, as allowed in Belgium. I was wrong.

My attempt is not at vandalising pages, but quoting BOTH languages in order to bring justice to the Belgian pages: I think you'd agree on this, so we could find a way out to that.

Next time tell me where I'm wrong, but don't tell me Astridpark or Heizelstadion or Amaulestraat are wrong...THEY'RE ON THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS, aren't they?

No ill will, be certain, only justice on my side, so let's try and find out some agreement. Can I now add the official Dutch names ALONG WITH the French ones? I won't delete the French versions, as I previously and wrongly did, be certain about it.

I won't of course make any further move without your agreement, so please tell me. But please be sensible and please add the Dutch versions... Gianmaria Framarin 17:44 2 June 2006

[edit] Are you there?

Hi again, LimoWreck, please answer to my questions as soon as you can, I don't think we should disagree so stupidly on such an important matter. I won't make any further move, but I'm expecting you to recognise the importance of quoting both Dutch and French OFFICIAL names when speaking of Belgium. I'm not talking about players or names and surnames of course, I controlled it and I saw I was wrong, but at least let's add the right double linguistic version to any official name, like stadiums, streets, places, associations and so on... I checked out and saw you're Dutch, so why so much reluctance? As soon as you want please answer. No vandalism, for certain. Gianmaria Framarin 18:25 2 June 2006

English has the habit of taking "french" names (unfortunately). Also, RSCA it's official name is "Royal", that is, the official name as registerend on the KBVB/URBSFA website. Check Dutch version or French version and look for matricule 35, you'll see the official name is R.S.C. Anderlecht, even in Flemish ;-) --LimoWreck 16:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
And about the historical old names, almost all clubs and names (also stadium names, officiale names of locations) used to be French at the beginning of the 20th century... --LimoWreck 16:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet again

Dear LimoWreck, things have changed since then, you know that. I can imagine you have probably already found a striking mass of problems on this subject, because I know there's plenty of Flemish people who'd like official Flemish names to appear beside the official French ones. I'd agree with them: it is now Grand Place/Grote Markt, there's no official document failing to quote both languages, and I do feel this is right. This way, it should also be Stade Roi Baudoin/Koning Boudewijnstadion or rue d'Amaule/Amaulestraat and Parc Astrid/Astridpark. It is like that on any other source, we know about this, and let me tell you that if I were a Flemish guy I'd do my best to add Flemish names to the French ones. It is a right they claim and that they've been given by the Belgian government as well (after all the Flemish are a majority group in Belgium), so I'd stick to that. Think about it. Bye. Gianmaria Framarin 3:42 3 June 2006

[edit] Electronic Music

Why that (those?) guy(s) are repeadetly deleting that link in the Electronic Music article? Brian W 11:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. Maybe because it's French. It try to avoid foreign-language articles in the English wikipedia; however very informative sites in one of the well-known languages like French, German or Spanish can be usefull; and I believe this is one of the few sites that provides an extensive collection of information relevant for the topic... so, well, I add again when it's removed --LimoWreck 11:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for music fans: are you aware that electronic music is not electronic dance music? Did you ever realize that no university in the USA regard electronic music and the music for dancing as the same genre? Are you aware that this is not a music magazine? Are you aware of the meaning of the term encyclopedic? Are you aware of the difference between idiomatic expressions, slang and encyclopedic (formal) language? Are you aware that most of articles claiming to deal with electronic music subgenres are unsourced or grounded only on independent websites? Brian W 23:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have no idea whatsoever what you're babbling about this time --LimoWreck 23:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to improve your knowledge of 'real spoken English? Brian W 23:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to learn to be clear what you are talking about, talking to the right persons, on the right moment, on the right subject... I'm not the first and only one who doesn't get a word of what you're trying to say... --LimoWreck 08:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Take a look here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thor_NL


[edit] Please stop

Please stop vandalizing my talk page. Brian W 11:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing my edits. You are a only an actor (or actress), as I already told you. Wny you continue to fool me, waste my time and try to destroy my "ego" ? Brian W 13:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite sources

I don't go to nightclubs, and listen to very little of the music that is played there. I don't know how the terms y'all are discussing are used, beyond some vague ideas based on my own experiences. The only way to solve this problem is to cite sources to support claims about how words are used. Wikipedia should not be promoting unused terminology, nor giving new meanings to established terminology. It is also not really enough to point to individual pages on the web where a term is used -- someone needs to cite a source where a reputable, knowledgeable person writes "the term electronic dance music refers to...". Anything else is pointless arguing, because whatever the result is will be removed and replaced by the first person to cite sources. It looks like few, if any, of the involved genres cite any references at all, so I'm not taking a position on what to do -- all articles without references are unacceptable and in violation of Wikipedia policy. Tuf-Kat 22:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Do what you want. Wikipedia is only a stupid game, I'm no longer interested in contributing on these topics. Usually, users that remove dispute templates are immediately banned, but you aren't yet. Maybe you are honestly right: Wikipedia is yours and none else has to touch your toy. Enjoy it Do not contact me anymore for any reason, I'll not post anything else on music genres. Please do not answer me. Thank you. Brian W 16:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of that IP

If that IP is a dynamic IP, it should be tagged as such - do you know which range it is dynamic in? Also, for your reference, I know of an administrator here User:R. Koot who speaks Dutch. I've asked him to look at the IP when he gets a chance. --HappyCamper 14:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It believe its in the range of Belgian ISP Telenet although I'm not sure. However, this is the major belgian cable ISP (i also use it sometimes for example), so blocking the range would really hurt thousands of people. However, the IP are not refreshed for weeks it seems when using a cable connection, so it should be possible to block him for editing for a while... --LimoWreck 14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, just now in the block log, another administrator extended the block. I might reverse it later, since I think it is too long. However, I'll let the 24 hour one stand for now (after all there isn't a rush to unblock the IP), and I'll check with Ruud to see if he has something else to suggest. How's that? --HappyCamper 14:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Great. Anyway, as the guy promised to continue attacking WP by all means, we'll see what else he'll come up with. Regards --LimoWreck 14:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Markov process

You wrote:

can't redirect, a property and a process are too different concepts)

Certainly they are two different things, but it does not follow that you cannot redirect. Redirects do things like that all the time, and appropriately so. If you don't know that, you're very new to Wikipedia.

Is there something good in this article that's not at Markov chain? Is this article not completely misleading and very stupidly written? Michael Hardy 23:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sort of, however, people looking for information about a markov process are also misled when they have to read about the markov property. Talking about the wrong subject, or something that's only a bit related to it is misleading as well, so one might as well remove a bad article instead of redirecting to another subject... But of course, a small but correct article like you've created now is great ;-) --LimoWreck 20:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queen

queen are progressive and are considered pioneers in progressive rock and progressive metal.

they have progressive rock influences. They are simply not one of the typical prog rock acts in the 70s, nor are they considered as one of the defining ones. You won't find them listed as one of the traditional prog rock bands. Besides, this article has nothing to do with progressive metal. --LimoWreck 13:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Reed

I am the artist that this article addresses. I don't care whether I have an article on this site or not, but apparently at least one fanatic does. I don't challenge deleting the article so much as I suggest blocking the account of the user. After actually reading the article, however, I propose that it be changed. There are some things that Qabbalah wrote about me that are not completely true and some notable things that were left out. Also, there's some personal information posted there that I prefer not to be accessable to the public. How did he get my wedding photo? I certainly agree that the pages dedicated to my albums ought to be removed or merged. The same with Cafe Graffiti which was not notable except, perhaps, as a side note. I will be happy to change it myself, but I don't know how so you'll have to bear with me as I learn.

Not that this matters, but.. RE: WP:MUSIC, There are two "notable" credits - 1. I toured South America and Mexico with Elegant Machinery - 2. I have been played on "Alternative" stations owned by Clearchannel (Something I regret, but it qualifies) Also - It is important to note that I have sold enough copies of my first two albums to earn a gold record, but I refuse to join the pathetic agencies that masquerade as unions, so I don't qualify.User:TonySReed

[edit] Zao (band) -> Zao (punk band) -> Zao (US band)

You recently moved Zao (band) to Zao (punk band), which wasn't a very accurate title for it, given that Zao is a metal band. I've just moved it to Zao (US band) to try to keep the article out of genre debates. I hope it's ok with you. I've also left a message about this on that article's talk page. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 13:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page signing

Why did you revert all of those changes I made? WP convention is to sign messages left on talk pages. If you don't want to sign messages, then please refrain from leave any. Robwingfield (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Why? Very simple, my experience learns that signing a warning on talk pages of anynomous vandals is an open invitation for them to vandalise the user pages or talk pages of the people putting the messages. Reverting vandalism in articles takes enough time, no need to deal with further annoyances. When posting a message on anonymous user talk pages, I only sign when it are editors making good contributions, needing help with their first edits, so they can more easily find my talk for more help. Blatant vandals and linkspammers are unwanted on WP, and also unwanted on my talk page, so keep my sign out --LimoWreck 00:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veurne

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Sorry about the Veurne delete. The intention was not vandalism, but simply an attempt to keep the article to what might be of interest to anglophone readers. I thought it would be OK to go ahead since you marked your original addition to the Veurne article as a "minor" edit. This being said, I recognize that my judgment on this is subjective and I should have asked you first (thanks for the lesson and sorry again). Just one more thing: You may want to remove the list of 11 deelgemeentes, either in your section (where they are already listed twice) or at the top of the article to avoid duplication. LVan 03:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] krautrock deletions

This is twice now you've deleted a simple factual reference I added to the 'Influence on later generations' section without providing any adequate reason for doing so. The Secret Machines are more than well known enough, and distinctive from the other bands mentioned in terms of sound, to warrant mention here for their Harmonia cover.

Please provide a valid justification for this deletion, or restore it. Thank you.AntonSirius 10:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Provide a valid justification and reference for addition... Don't reverse the proove. We can't check everything, as people just keep spamming their favorite pet band. This small band doesn't seem very relevant in the krautrock story --LimoWreck 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And *Laika* is somehow "relevant to the krautrock story"? The door has already been opened for references to modern bands who have picked up various strands of krautrock and made them their own. For their part the Secret Machines are popular enough to have been tabbed by Microsoft for one of their Zune launch concerts, and well-known enough for their krautrock influence that I've seen reviews for Harmonia re-issues start with lines like "Hey Secret Machines fans! This one's for you!"

If you want to restrict that section of the article to just "well-known" bands, I'd suggest cutting back to just Radiohead, Sterolab and Wilco, as they're the only bands the average person is likely to have even heard of. In fact listing both Stereolab and Mouse on Mars is very nearly redundant. But as it stands it seems to me -- with no axe to grind here at all -- that you're being far too possessive over the krautrock page. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the addition I made, with the possible exception that it wasn't detailed enough. If that's your objection than say so, rather than accusing me of "spamming my favorite pet band". AntonSirius 00:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portland home of world reknown cyclocross riders

Thanks for doing that, I've been itching to do it for the past week but was wondering there was something going on I didn't know about. Will.law 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the world highest ranked cyclocross riders are from Europa (for decades), it didn't make sense ;-) --LimoWreck 18:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prog rock

Why did you revert my changes to the prog rock article? Now its back to being full of heavily POV editorialising. You've also removed my requests for citations to quite dubious statements, and my changing of the statement that Chris Cutler started up Rock In Opposition all by himself. He didn't. RIO was formed by a coalition of broadly socialist musicians including memebers of Samla mamas mama, Univers Zero, Stormy 6, Etron Fou Leloublan and others, I should know, I was at the UK inaugral RIO gig in London in 1978. I'm not going to get into an edit war over it though, if you want an article on Prog that quite frankly stinks of elitism and pomposity and isn't properly referenced, fine by me, let some other editor fight over it quercus robur 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who editted what, I only know one or more people removed entire sections that were giving an image of the prog rock genre, and stripped it down to some plain vague texts that actuyally don't seem to say anything. Feel free to correct factual details however. --LimoWreck 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon Talk Page Signing

I will reiterate what Robwingfield said above under the heading 'Talk Page Signing' — if you plan not to sign warnings posted to talk pages associated with vandals, please don't add those warnings. We should not be anonymously placing warnings, but rather take individual responsibility for them by signing them. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, don't add warnings to vandals talk page, but let them vandalize wikipedia without being logged. That's the spirit boy; way to go --LimoWreck 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You believe you would be the only one looking at those pages you tag, yes? I don't think so. Further, if you have a problem with vandalism on your user or talk page you can request that they be protected. So your reasoning for not signing (concern that anons will vandalize your user pages) is a non-starter - your pages can be protected if they become a target. Now, I'd ask that you take responsibility for your actions and sign your warnings. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Welcoming New Users

First of all, I find your message to me both condescending and frivolous. I do look at the contributions of all NEW USERS before welcoming them and believe that even small contributions that improve an article should be acknowledged. Shoessss 13:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There you said it: "improve" an article... lots of anonymous "user" don't improve it all ;-) but vandalise --LimoWreck 17:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question...

Did you leave this on my talk page by mistake? My name isn't anywhere in the history of Belgian football. Mistakes happen, so it's no big deal if it was. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It must have been about: [2] removal of Jupiler League template... --LimoWreck 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Systems

You are absolutely correct that the concept of systems is studied in a very generic way, but creating a category of everything that happens to have "system" in its name is not in fact helpful for or representative of such a study. A relevant guideline is WP:OCAT ("Unrelated subjects with shared names"). On Wikipedia, such issues are not decided by a vote count. HTH! >Radiant< 10:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That guidelines is about "unrelated subjects"... The subjects in this category happen to be related, as they're studied together. --LimoWreck 11:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Systems and Category:Systems appeal

Many thanks for your support re Category:Systems. Following the deletion, Mdd has initiated a Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems. If you would like to participate and support it, do add your name under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Systems#Participants.

In addition, I'm trying for an appeal for Category:Systems — see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_20#Category:Systems — we can see what happens anyway, but do add to the discussion! Procedure and following guidelines seems to be important for success, so do read the guidelines on overcategorization and add comments in the light of this if you wish. Best regards, Jonathan Bowen 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Belgium

Hey,

moest je er nog nooit van gehoord hebben: WikiProject Belgium is altijd op zoek naar nieuwe leden!

groeten, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ik zie wel :-) Ik heb echter nog handen vol werken op de NL wiki en op commons, en het tekenen van kaartjes. Maar een deel van het werk is wel hier bruikbaar, en af en toe hevel ik eens een klein artikel of coördinaten over naar hier :-) --LimoWreck 19:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gustave Rolin-Jaequemyns

Ummmm... What part of the title of the page (WP:UCN) prompted you to undo most of the improvements i have spent time on? Kleuske 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Did something go wrong ? Sorry, i'll check it out... --LimoWreck 17:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music

It's up for deletion again. If you have good references for it being notable in its field, this would be a good time to bring them up.--SarekOfVulcan 15:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)