User talk:Michelle1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Michelle1, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- NatsukiGirl\talk 22:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


Ah, NatsukiGirl beat me to it. I'll just stress the business about "signing" messages using four tildes — it makes it much easier to reply. Happy editing! --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


hi, ok. lets see if this worked michelle1Michelle1

test 2 Michelle1

test3Michelle1 06:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You can test things out in the Wikipedia:Sandbox (oh, and if you want you signature not to be red, just add something yo your user page).. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your message

Is this what you were asking about?

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.

On the matter of the Bryan Adams article: you simply removed the paragraph. Is the implication that it's wholly fabricated? If not, it would be better to correct it than to erase it completely. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

hi mel, yes that is the area i was talking about. i remember that for the future. as far as the article was concerned, there was a record that came out but the author of that post was making assumptions, and i though it better to have nothing than have conjecture. i've since re-edited it but with the real story, even though it has a little or no bearing as there were many songs that went through this process in the early days. Michelle1 17:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Mel

Here's your chance to make a difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mel_Etitis

--Anittas 01:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarianism

Michelle, please stop editing in a way that entirely changes the meaning or thrust of articles. I've only looked at two of your edits, but one changed the definition of vegetarianism to what is basically veganism, and the second changed what the Zoo (magazine) article was about (a British men's magazine) to being about a German fashion magazine. If you want the latter to have its own article (if it's notable enough) by all means create one. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarianism

Hi Michelle

I thought I'd send you a message regarding your edits to the page on vegetarianism. First of all, I see that you are new to Wikipedia, so - Welcome. I see that you have made some edits to the intro; in order to highlight one particular definition of vegetarianism. Unfortunately, this is not something you can do on Wikipedia; One of Wikipedia's core principles is that material should be presented with a Neutral Point of View (NPOV); that means that where there are different interpretations of a particular subject, both must be presented. If one viewpoint is much more predominant than others it's OK to reflect that in Wikipedia (although the minority viewpoings must still be given space); however, where there is a wide difference of opinion, that has to be made clear upfront. If editors don't observe this principle, we end up with what are termed edit wars, which is what the editing activity on the vegetarianism page is in danger of turning into. What's going on at that page is a regularly encountered phenomenon on Wikipedia, where one school of thought tries to 'claim' a term as theirs, and another then tries to claim it back. The community position on this is that Wikipedia should take a neutral line in the debate.

You'll see that your latest edit has been replaced by one which I suspect you won't like. I predict that if you attempt to alter it back, or amend it as per your previous edits, the same will happen. If you want to find a way of wording this intro that doesn't just get overwritten again shortly afterwards, you're going to have to work a little harder on it, I'm afraid. A good way of doing that is to take the issue to the article's talk page. There, you can try to involve interested parties in trying to come up with a form of words that attracts consensus support. I'm happy to help out with this - let me know.

If you want to reply, visit my user page by clicking on my ID below, then you can select the talk tab, then click on the + symbol to leave me a message.

All the best, SP-KP 19:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetables

Hi Michelle, I know eggs aren't vegetables, but nor are apples, and veggies eat them. The definition that was on the page, and now is again, is the correct one. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've commented on Talk:Vegetarianism. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vege intro

Hi again Michelle, thanks for your reply. There's a discussion on the subject on the article's talk page now, so if you'd like to see your point of view reflected, I suggest you join in. Cheers SP-KP 22:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your most recent edit

Hi Michelle. I have reverted your most recent edit to the vegetarianism page, as the edit summary does not give an accurate view of the changes you made. If you wish to make changes which significantly change the meaning of some text, particularly the lead text of a major article, please can you ensure that your edit summary is accurate. SP-KP 14:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Adams and Bryan Adams (hockey player) disambiguation

Michelle, according to Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation), it is not only proper but is good practice to have a link to Bryan Adams (hockey player) on Bryan Adams. Please review the policy. --Nlu 19:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Michelle: for my response to your response, please see User talk:Nlu#hockey player etc. Thanks. --Nlu 17:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hi Michelle

I've reverted your most recent edit to the vegetarianism page for the same reason as I reverted your last one. You need to include accurate edit summaries so that people know what changes you've made. If you say that you've changed the tense of an article, that's what I'd expect to find, not something else. One of the principles of Wikipedia is that all editors should assume that other editors are acting in good faith, but if you do this kind of thing that does make it difficult to believe that that's what you're doing.

SP-KP 20:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi How do you make a more accurate edit summary than what i edited and explained? Please explain with an example, as i am misreading your reversions as being biased towards me thanks Michelle1 21:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not SP-KP, but I would like to help out. I could have sourced the statement using the Mosby's reference, but I didn't for two reasons: it was already in the article, and three out of the four most popular vegetarian diets include some of those foods. Interestingly, Mosby's uses the term "many" not "most", although in the context of data such as these [1][2] I wonder which term is more accurate. Also, U.S. data collected between 1976-1988 in a study of the Seventh-day Adventist church showed that 29% were vegetarian, while 7-10% of the vegetarians were vegan. It would be helpful if you can find more data. --Viriditas | Talk 02:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pasting essay at User talk:Mel Etitis

Yeah, I edited to remove a music critic's essay about Bryan Adams that you had pasted whole at User talk:Mel Etitis. It's absolutely fine to post a link to that essay so that Mel Etitis can read it and discuss it with you. Posting the whole essay there, however, means that Wikipedia is re-publishing someone else's copyrighted content, and that makes it a problem. We're quite concerned about copyrights around here, so keep that in mind as you edit and discuss. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 18:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You then put this essay in the Bryan Adams article itself, which is even more of a copyright no-no. I've removed it. Wasted Time R 12:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for both contributing to Wikipedia, and for all of the follow-up conversation. If you are comfortable releasing the work under the GFDL as a contribution to Wikipedia, that's great! Please send an e-mail to permissions@wikimedia.org to verify that this is the case. I'd like to make sure that you understand that once the essay is used as part of an entry that anyone can (and likely will) edit it "mercilessly". After you have sent the e-mail to permissions, you may want to consider posting the essay at Wikisource, where we place usable primary-source content. That way, no matter who edits the entry here at Wikipedia, that essay can be used as a reference for all future editors of the article. This may seem a rather laborious process, but it is much more common for new users to be misunderstanding copyright than it is for agents of article subjects to be helping out. Thanks for your patience. If you have any questions about this, don't hesitate to contact me. Jkelly 16:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the Dave Marsh essay

Michelle1, you are to be commended for trying to correct some of the rubbish that makes its way on the Bryan Adams page. However, there's a problem with introducing the whole Dave Marsh essay, as you previously have tried to do, even if the copyright issues are resolved. That's because the tone and organisation of the essay, while fine for the liner notes of a Bryan Adams anthology, are not right for Wikipedia. The article is supposed to be a straight-forward, neutral description of Adams' career and its signficance. Marsh's essay jumps around in time, offers his own opinions, uses poetic prose, and so forth. Now, Marsh is an acclaimed writer and music critic, so parts of this essay could definitely be quoted within the Wikipedia article, and notions from it can be incorporated into the Wikipedia article, but in its raw form the essay cannot become the Wikipedia article. Wasted Time R 15:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: dave marsh / adams bio

> hi i understand your point, but the current bio that exist there isn't a great read. a mixture of both defeats > the purpose of having such a good article. putting it somewhere is a good idea, i don't know how to do that. i > could try an edit but i just don't want to waste everyone's time. what do you suggest? Michelle1

I'm not sure. You could try adding it to Wikisource, a parallel wiki-thing to Wikipedia, and reference it from there ... but I've never worked on Wikisource, have no idea what it's like. Maybe you could ask Jkelly, he/she is a Wikipedia admin, I'm just a lowly contributor. Wasted Time R 00:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign wiki pages

Sorry for the delay in responding, I was on vacation. Yes, currently you need to set up a new account for every language. However, this may change soon. Academic Challenger 02:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Bryan Adams Edits

Hi, I've raised a couple of points on the Talk:Bryan Adams page that I'd like you to clear up for me. Thanks. Hero1701 01:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does Sweeney Todd appear in the Canadian Encylopedia entry Adams but you cut it out every time it's restored here? Why does he not use his middle name "Guy" ? Inquiring minds want to know; these facts are all over the place and you don't properly respond to them. Does Mr. Adams know you're mutilating his history? --Wtshymanski 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for your note. I work at his BA's office, please note he doesn't have a middle name and has never used one to my knowledge on any of his work. The Canadian Encyclopedia is inaccurate in printing this information. The group reference has been in the 'odd recordings' section of the Discography for some time. I hope that clears things up! Thanks for your entries, please continue to add things and I hope you don't mind if I revert things back. All the best. Michelle1 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Speculative references" ? An odd comment. The two books are sitting here at my left elbow as I type this. The very first Juno appeareance warrants inclusion in-line in the text, not buried in the discography (even if there's some question as to if Adams was singing in what would be his mature style at the time). I object to the repeated reversions of legitimate edits without explanation. You do know you are crossing the line of reasonableness here and that Wikipedia has mechanisms for coping with this sort of problem? --Wtshymanski 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've given you lots of explanations for the reversions, and I'm fine for you to bring this up with Wikipedia directly if you wish, as your references and links are completely unsubstantiated, particularily the books, which are authourized and remain purely speculative at best. Adams did not win nor did he ever perform at any Juno award's in the 70's, and any appearance had nothing to do with anything he was involved in recording wise. The recordings made back then are however included, as are many other recordings during his career - in the Discography. Michelle1 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Bryan Adams. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Grouse 10:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

hi grouse, this information is repeated from the discography. futhermore the link provided has no mention of Adams and the book reference is an unauthorised biogbraphy. Michelle1 12:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Bryan Adams, you will be blocked from editing. Grouse 13:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

hi grouse, before you block me, please check the links and references and you will see this is hardly vandalism. Also please check the discography as the information is repeated. thank you.Michelle1 13:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have looked into what you have written on this subject already, as have three other editors. So far no one has found these arguments to be convincing. You cannot continue to delete information that there is a clear consensus to keep. If you have new information, please provide it at Talk:Bryan Adams so it can be discussed but do not unilaterally delete again. Grouse 13:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i've added the group reference into the main body of the page and added an additional group as well, i hope you find this a satisfactory result.Michelle1 14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Bryan Adams, you will be blocked from editing. No, this is not satisfactory. You have been asked repeatedly to discuss on the talk page before removing the information again. I would ask you to revert your last change before someone else does. Grouse 14:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i added two paragraphs yesterday evening. i would like to enclose it in the body of that text. please tell me how we can do this. thanks Michelle1 14:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Bryan Adams. Please continue discussion there so everyone can participate. Grouse 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Neg 6.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Neg 6.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 74.204.40.46 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 74.204.40.46 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Adams

I'm not sure why, but a few days ago you changed the 'Musical career' section of this page to put it into reverse chronological order, so it goes from his most recent works to his oldest. This goes against Wikipedia guidelines: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). Unless you can give a good reason why the rules should be ignored for this page, I will return it to how it was. It's much easier to read that way. Terraxos (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

hi. i tried it in sandbox and just thought it was better read content wise. i suppose it's subjective, and didn't realise there were guidelines on this. did you try reading the other way? what do you think? Michelle1 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Thought I'd Seen Everything

I have reverted your edits to I Thought I'd Seen Everything, as it is not strictly a Bryan Adams song, it was written many years ago and first performed by the writer's first wife Stevie Vann. Good try anyway. SkeletorUK (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's far more than just the title and i have also changed the wording from cover to version. See Talk:I Thought I'd Seen Everything SkeletorUK (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a link on your page, but will do so here for those that are interested on the facts of this song. According to his official website, the only thing that is similar is the title, which doesn't constitute the claim of either 'cover' or 'version'. http://www.bryanadams.com/index.php?target=news Michelle1 (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that source is perfect, good work. However the page is still in quite a state. SkeletorUK (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)