User talk:Rikstar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No "Welcome!" from wikipedia on this page? Why me??

Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous



Contents

[edit] Parapsychology, skeptical criticism

Hi, I put in a response to the criticism you contributed Martinphi 02:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Physics and parapsychology

Wow, that is a really good one. I think I have no sources addressing it. I'll see what I can find. Merry Christmas! Martinphi 06:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New parapsychology crit

Yes, I'm not sure what you mean by "big guns," but I personally think comparing psi to quantum mechanics is probably a bad idea. It's like trying to explain Dark Matter by tweaking General Relativity, or something. There's going to be a limit to the expertise you can find on Wikipedia. If you know the criticisms so well, though, maybe you can help with the responses?

BTW, I've heard so many positive things said by eminent quantum physicists which are positive of parapsychology, that the last crit isn't gonna be hard (:

From the looks of it, really, this is a level of detail too great for this article, and needs a "Parapsychology and physics" article to itself.

Whoa, dude, I finished reading that, and it's very good, but it needs to paired down to a paragraph or two and a quote! Or, put it in a separate article. I'm saving it for reference myself, though. I've often wanted to debunk the mis-use of QM and other terms like "magnetism," that New Agers use.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background

I think there needs to be more background for this:

Renowned statistician and conjuror Persi Diaconis, an observer in many parapsychological studies, observed that:
"Even if there had not been subject cheating, [these experiments] would be useless because they were out of control. The confusing and erratic experimental conditions I have described are typical of every(emphasis in the original) test of paranormal phenomena I have witnessed."

because if this quote is going to be in there we need to know exactly what he was observing, as with the quote directly above. Makes it sound like he observed the entire field, and all kinds of experiments. It doesn't mesh with the rest of the paragraph. According to this quote, it should read, "All parapsychological studies have been badly designed."Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Restructuring Parapsychology

The parapsychology article needs some serious restructuring. Come on over to my sandbox and see how you can help.--Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 07:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

The citation for the Stenger article in the list of References should be reformatted like this:

Document available on university program or department Web site:

Rogers, B. (2078). Faster-than-light travel: What we've learned in the first twenty years. Retrieved August 24, 2079, from Mars University, Institute for Martian Studies Web site: http://www.eg.spacecentraltoday.mars/university/dept.html

Your Beyerstein link is dead. Could you take a look at it?

Please see either APA style or Wikipedia:Harvard referencing for guidelines on how to do inline citations. (I've already done some of them for you.)

Thanks. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 18:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing some clean-up on the citations, and I was wondering if you have the city of publication for Alcock 1981? --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

or a city for Gardener 1981? --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis Presley

Hi, Rikstar. I read your comments on the Elvis talk page and would welcome any input where you feel the article reads to much like a fan piece and is not neutral enough. I especially desire this because, although I am strong for neutrality, I being an admitted fan of his might have overlooked something that you might not. I wish for the article to be neutral and encyclopedic and appreciate your observations. Let me know on my talk page or at the Elvis page what needs addressing. Thanks again. --Northmeister 20:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I read your comments on the Elvis talk page regarding editing. I agree, editing should be enjoyable. Feel free to edit what you will there - whether you reform the sentences - add material - delete material - whether it is criticism or not - I will support you in your efforts as best I can. My main concern (despite rantings to the contrary) is overall structure and dynamics. Most of my editing at the page is format wise - organizing the structure so that one day it can be a 'good article' candidate and maybe a 'featured' article. Don't let anyone intimidate you from editing. Be bold and strike your course. Most of the problems there are from one user alone. The article especially need NPOV editors who can take the big picture - summary editors who can take the enormous amount of quotation and help summarize it better - etc. --Northmeister 04:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
While I can't add much, I have been watching this page for quite a while. I'm so pleased at the good job your doing cleaning it up and just wanted to let you know that. - Maria202 18:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
What, you have no talk yet? Hey, this is very interesting, and you have put lots of time in on the Elvis article, so here goes. If you have Elvis Presley the DVD go to 15:00 and listen to the recording of Phillips making the "that's a POP record" comment. Immediately after that, you can here Elvis say something about Carl Perkins. Say, what? Perkins didnt walk into Sun until October of 54. So Presley knew about what Perkins was doing about 100 miles away! I can't think of any other explaination. Let me know if you turn up anything on this one. I have had one person verify that Presley does say "Carl Perkins". I may add it to the Perkins article, since anyone with access to the DVD can verify this. Thanks in advance for any reply.Steve Pastor 22:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
word of warning. user BillRodgers whom you reverted some edits the other day for is quite probably user:HarveyCarter's latest sockpuppet. [[1]] check out the list Elvis has been on of his longtime targets with all his socks having similar to exact wording posts. Even taking over arguments once one is blocked as if nothing has changed but his name. I just filled out the 4th sockpuppet report in a few months against him [[2]] --Xiahou 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis as Featured

The following is in response to your question on featured status and help and can be found on my talk page as well:

Yes, I agree. I am presently on vacation. Will return sometime next week. I would be more than willing to both support the effort and help you out. Just from a general look at the article it seems you've done quite a bit of work since I've been absent. I think you ought to be commended for all the effort you've put into the article - you've done more than your share - great job!!!! I will look the article over when I return. Time is limited now - Like to see it featured maybe around August when he passed away or something like that. Until next week - best wishes and keep up the good work. --Northmeister 15:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for letting me know about the problem and nomination. Been so busy with a move etc. That I've been unable to help out for awhile. GREAT JOB with the nomination and all that. Looks like we met the criteria per Giggy except those phots. Only thing wrong with them that I could figure out is the copyright info for fairuse - I updated two photos - with the information I had - but the third (funeral) I am currently trying to obtain information on. Until then I replaced it with the commons photo by a user of Elvis' gravesite. (this response also on my talk page) --Northmeister 01:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology FA

Hello, I noticed that you were a frequent editor of the Parapsychology article. The article has gone through a lot of work and improvements and has recently been promoted to Good Article and is currently being nominated for Featured Article. If you believe it's Featured Article material then please go here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parapsychology and show your support or add input for improvements that can quickly be made. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Beach Boys

Good job so far. It has needed work for quite a while, but I have been either too busy or too lazy to do it. I am a little bit uncomfortable with all the use of Brian's autobiography as a source. Brian hardly had anything to do with the book, which is almost entirely bits and pieces cobbled together from David Leaf's book and Steven Gaines' Heroes And Villains. Except for the parts that were found to be libelous (or slanderous, I forget which). It wouldn't effect any of the stuff that you have now, but I may go back after my vacation next week and change the references to the other two books. It would be the same information, but a more reliable source.

Also I was kind of working on the next section of the page, personnel changes. I was slowly trying to make a new page, The Beach Boys lineups, which was suggested on the talk page. It would have to be split into the studio/official group, which is what I have done so far, and the touring group; otherwise you end up with Mike Kowalski being called a member of the Beach Boys. Anyway, if you want to look, it is here. I couldn't decide whether to go with prose or just a big list; right now, it is a big list.

Thanks for all of the work so far! MookieZ 20:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with you about the Todd Gold book; I will only use it for the non-controversial stuff, but if more original citations can be found, then great. Don't envy you tackling the line up issue - always gonna be difficult. I'll take a look though. Rikstar 23:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis Presley

Actually in the manner I posted it on there I think it should stay. Because his film career, Is just as important to his music career to many people. There fore i believe it should be on his main page. And many people look for things on the main page and do not click the external links.Rogue Gremlin 18:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

  • the size of the main article is not affected that much over his filmography, in fact a seperate page adds more space to wiki, i believe it should be on main page with no seperate pageRogue Gremlin 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • i think whats left on that page should be moved to main page as well( i will move it there to if i can find out how to delete the page afterwards) , it takes up far les space on wiki servers to leave it on main page than to create seperate pages, plus it's not likely the table i created will ever grow since he is not alive to make more films.Rogue Gremlin 23:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason the note was writer(idea) is because elvis wrote the concept, the notes should really only be about elvis, his only connection is, that the movie was his idea according to IMDb, if you would have just put in the notes (co-producer) then it would have been about elvis, but you had the other persons name Plus IMDB does not list Elvis as a co-producer of this film, just a writer(idea). The only producer credits for the film are Isaac Florentine as executive producer and Don Warrener as producer. Rogue Gremlin 21:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought he sang in Flaming Star, I'll have to rewatch it. Rogue Gremlin 23:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • the version I have he does sing in. Some versions have the song part edited out. But it infact was a movie in which was considered a singing role. The song he sings in the movie is called "Summer Kisses, Winter Tears" so i edited the filmography to state it. Charro is the only film in which there was no singing even recorded by him in the movie. Thanks for telling me your version did not include the song. It made me rewatch mine, and also do a lil research to find out about it being edited out of some versions.Rogue Gremlin 00:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

original title not needed as a lot of films change names before being released, infact alot of Elvis movies have different working titles as well as alternate release titles also what you put in about Flaming Star is about sountrack music not songs he sang in the film, so going to change it back with referenceRogue Gremlin 16:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the other back with reference, then removed both, because otherwise we would have to start filling up notes to all movies with song titles which is not neccesary, so just removed them both. with only distinction going to actual non-singing film roles. A non-singing film role is a movie in which someone does not sing during the movie, That distinction goes only to Charro.Rogue Gremlin 17:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • In love me tender notes it says First Movie Role not FIRST FILM, theres a difference which is why i put it there, because some consider Pied Piper to be FIRST FILM even though it was a documentary he did not play a character in and it was never released. A movie role means you are playing a character. And as with flaming star originally being Black star is further proof of why i removed reno bros because most films have different original names, and filling the notes with those are not neccesary.Rogue Gremlin 17:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis as Featured

He Rikstar. I think the article is ready to try at featured status - What's your take? Is there anything needing tasking for improvement (well Wikipedia is always improving!)? Let me know. --Northmeister 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the status of the page? Let me know of anything that you feel needs to be done before we submit a featured proposal. My idea is to start moving on the process of featured status and to get a consensus for the pages best look. Anything goes, including any opinions you may have regarding, say the quote from Jaycees. Whatever helps get this article ready for featured status, I am game. Thanks. --Northmeister 00:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll work with you on the problems you have in certain areas pertaining to the article. I concur, trivial matters - for length and quality reasons - should be left out if possible. Let me know when you want to work on those items and we'll see what we can do. --Northmeister 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Time Difference: I believe there is a five hour or six hour difference. We have Daylight Savings Time Here. I hail from America. We still go by the 12 hour clock and the 'English' measurement system here - so in military time 19:00 would be what 7:00 there and I am five behind you so that would be what - 2 or 1 here or 3pm. I am writing already too late I think. --Northmeister 20:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the edits you made were not necessary, removing his parents names were not necessary, changing Elvis to Presley was not necessary, When referring to him by one name he is known as Elvis, not Presley. Also added a reference to him stating which was his favorite. If you go to the site you can find plenty of his interviews where he made the statement. Seems as though you were just making edits for no reason other than to make them. I found no fault in the way they were worded before you altered them, and think the way they were worded was better suited.Aladdin Zane 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with fixing capitalization issues, I have never seen any reference to Kurt Russell being in "King Creole", he was in "It happened at the World's fair" and it is noted in trivia. In fact the only trivia I have ever seen about Kurt and Elvis mention only 3 movies that tie them together "It happened at the World's fair" "Elvis" and "3000 Miles to Graceland" in which he pays homage to his part in "It happened at the World's fair" by having a lil kid run on screen and kick him in the shin while he is in Elvis costume.Aladdin Zane 23:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also referring to him by Elvis would still show a NPOV infact because of just the opposite of what you stated. I think most non-elvis fans call him by simply Elvis just as much if not more than fans.Aladdin Zane 23:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorising Elvis

I note that you have amended one of Elvis's categories from "American singer-songwriters" to "American musicians", claiming that "Elvis did not write songs". However, I believe Elvis did in fact co-write a few songs, and freely adapted many others; certainly he was given co-writing credits for "All Shook Up", "Don't Be Cruel", "Love Me Tender" and "Heartbreak Hotel", among others (though given the music business practices of the time and the Colonel's ethics, this is not conclusive proof). Furthermore, if "musician" implies instrumental proficiency, Elvis was not renowned for that either. He may have played a little piano and guitar, but his real instrument was his voice. If that makes him a musician, then one category should be a subset of the other. Rodparkes 06:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis

Yeah and I concur with what you said. I moved them because they seemed out of place with the timeline stuff. If you can fix this so that they work with the timeline I think that would help for the flow of the article. Your right about subsections as well. The article is approaching 111,000 right now - not sure if that is too long or not, but we might be OK. Let me know when you feel the article is ready. The filmography section needs work though - can't have any citations needed there. --Northmeister 04:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't let the recent edits bother you. I took out the jaycee speech - which brought us to 110. Although I like those types of boxes to get a feel of the persons own speech patterns and thoughts - I do understand your concerns there and it does add to the length of the article. Do you feel any of Onefortyones edits had merit today? Just checking myself. Some of the material may be relevant if written better - not sure. It seems stuff already gone over or matters so trivial (beefcake anyone?) that I'm not sure why he adds it. Feel free to change anything I've done that you feel needs to be corrected. What do you think of the format? Should it be changed at all? I'll be around to help you out, if you need it. Stay cool - were almost at featured possibility. Now that would be great, which much thanks to YOU for all your work! --Northmeister 03:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'll go through the article again to see how it reads and then I think we should look into the featured status thing. At the least we'll get a picture of what needs improvement - at the most we'll have a featured article. If you have any other suggestions let me know. --Northmeister 01:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the citation and for the info on where 68 comeback was taped. I've been reading through the feature criteria lately and I think we are getting close. We have a good article citation already. Is there anything you think doesn't belong or should be added? --Northmeister 23:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American spellings

See my comments made at User_talk:Rodparkes#American_spellings. Thanks. M0RHI | Talk to me 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lets try it

Rikstar, are you still around? I think we should move forward now with the Elvis Presley article and try featured status. Let me know if you definitely think its a go (the one irritating issue is onefortyone's edits). Apart from those, I think we might be able to pass this time. We'll work together to initiate the process when you give the green light as well. --Northmeister 00:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Got your comments. See what you can do. When you think we have a green light - we'll work together in this process to make it happen. --Northmeister 01:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Rikstar, maybe the best approach would be to ask for a featured reviewer to give us their opinion on whether the issue of onefortyones recent additions will hold the article back. See my comments on the Elvis talk. --Northmeister 15:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Clearing up as best as possible any controversy only helps get us to a featured article. I moved ahead with featured status, unware that Laralove had proposed the article for 'GA collaboration of the week'. Oops - removed it afterwards. Anyway - your recent edits help as always - thanks. --Northmeister 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar
This is something you really deserve for your outstanding editing at Elvis Presley. Long overdue. Keep up the good work. --Northmeister 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP

Hey - if your interested, I'd like to invite you over to another project to help out. I'm presently involved in trying to improve the EVP article and I see you've edited Parapyschology as well. --Northmeister 23:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presley article

Hi, been away on a short wikibreak. How's the article doing? Are we ready for FA? Should we get a peer review first? Someone took the lock off I see. --Northmeister 00:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ready Teddy

Look at the stills from the Ready Teddy performance in the Ed Sullivan Show article. I like to be able to back up what I write. Steve Pastor 18:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis Presley

Hi, hows the article doing? Looks like a lot of editing lately. --Northmeister 00:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Suggestion about Backing Up

I suggest that you make copies of sections as you near completion of your edits. You may wish to review the following pages: [3], [4], [5]. I think it's time to ask for help. Touch base with me soon if you can, to let me know what you think. Steve Pastor 20:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur, its a mess until this user is admonished for his behavior. As I've stated elsewhere, Thatcher31, JKelly etc. might be best to seek help with as they've dealt with this problem before and there is a previous remedy for it. --Northmeister 00:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Today I will begin inquiries. I'll keep you guys informed, and we will undoubtedly need your input.(Although frankly, I think the Elvis talk page makes things pretty obvious.) No one is going on vacation any time soon, are they? Steve Pastor 15:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some thanks

The Barnstar of Diligence
Many awards seemed appropriate, The Working Man's barnstar, The Tireless Contributor's barnstar, etc. But I felt this one was most appropriate for all the hard work you've put into the Elvis Presley article. For continuing to improve it despite the fact that much of your hard work has been mangled or removed and your changes constantly reverted against consensus. Most editors would have given up by now, but your dedication to this article is unwaivering. For that, I give you this. Lara❤Love 20:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to second the above barnstar. Rikstar, your not listed as having email. Like to contact you this way. I have email listed, just contact me and we can go from there. --Northmeister (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link to email me: Northmeister's Email through Wikipedia. --Northmeister (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am interested, in particular, as to whether or not you have asked the ArbCom to get involved. Please let me know. I just need to press a few buttons (Well, I'm sure there's a lot more to it. But there are larger issues than one particular editor.) to get things started, if you haven't gone that route yet. Steve Pastor (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

May I list you as an involved party? Please look at this page.[6] I will try to take care of most of this, but without your continuing involvement, Elvis will degenerate quickly. You've done so much work on this article. If we don't do this, no one else is likely to. But, for instance, I don't even know what the 3 tildas means. Would it be good for me to contact NorthMeister? Again, May I list you as an involved party? Steve Pastor (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Elvis

Thanks for your note. I was already aware of some of the problems with some editors here and one in particular who seems to be quiet at present. However, I don't have time to get involved with content disputes and probably misunderstood where Pastor Steve stood on this issue. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rikstar, rather than have you leave, we need to deal with the problem once and for all. Did anything come from the ArbCom talk above? This may come down to getting copies of his references and checking what he's referenced and what else is there. He's obviously pushing his own POV on the article. If we prove this, he should be blocked from the article. This has gone on for far too long. Lara❤Love 15:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The ArbCom wasn't followed through (no blame attached to anyone for this). I can check all the references I can, but I may need specific details from others about what really needs to be checked to save time. Rikstar (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey there Rikstar. I hate to say it, but I believe the majority of the sources that onefortyone has added are of questionable validity (particularly the those used in controversial paragraphs relating to Presley's sex life), and if you checked through all of these, you'll likely find more than one that is selectively quoted or open to interpretation. Under WP:SYN the paragraph I tried to remove should be deleted anyway, but worse is that pretty much NONE of the sources cited in the article explicitly state that Presley was not very active/or that the claims to the contrary are exaggerated. Instead, they appear to be selectively quoted or open to interpretation (such as the quotes from Peter Guralnick). A number of users appear to have found some holes in the sourcing by 141 as well, if you'll checkout the debate under 'original research' (One user put forward number of sources which contradict 141's assertions, while another gave additional quotes by Peter Guralnick appear to expose some of 141's selective quoting). I hope this helps you in your reference hunting.--GiantSpitoon (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we have about 500 words to work with on the Arbcom submittal. Would you take maybe 100-200 words to sum up your involvement with the Elvis article? Preparing this thing is going to be quite time consuming, and I can use some help.

For the record, when Lara moved in, I decided to wait and see if her approach would be successful. Now we know. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just slap it onto my Talk page. Thanks. Steve Pastor (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just pasted together the comments by Lara, yourself, and Maria calling for action against 141. 345 words! I also updated Lara. I'm going to plan on an early January submittal to the Arbcom. With all that we have written on the Discussion pages, this might not be as onerous as I thought it would be. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

141 has been putting text in the Ed Sullivan Show article by experts who wrote about what was shown. This information is clearly incorrect, because the shows are now out on dvd. Would you be interested in looking at short clips from those shows to help me establish that the authoritative well sourced information is incorrect? BTW, I have added HorseJoe and Northmeister's comments to the ArbCom submission to be. Still hoping for a time line of your experience to help demonstate how prolonged this has been, and maybe the number of edits invovled. Steve Pastor (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I take no pleasure in spending time on this. I think Wikipedia is a great idea, but there are still some flaws that have to be addressed. It is unfortunate that we have to go to the ArbCom to ask for a ban, but I see no alternative. I hope you can hang in there for just a bit longer. There are now 6 or 7 editors supporting this. Your comments on the duration and persistence of the problem will help, I think. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Rikstar, Sorry to impose on you, one quick question please. Re: Elvis Presley(Main Article) Hollywood Years it reads Sight and Sound wrote in his movies "Elvis Presley,aggreesively bisexual in appeal,knowingly erotic,(was) acting like a crucifield houri and singing with a kind of machine-made surrealism. Did 141 site this source? I beleive he did,would like to make sure. I believe there is selective referencing there. Could you confirm this please,when you get time,appreciate it.--Jaye9 (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I think I finally figured out all of the formatting to get the Arbcom submittal ready. I just looked at some of the "verifiable, well sourced" but incorrect material 141 put in the Steve Allen and Ed Sullivan Show articles. It's very sad, but I don't even want to get into it those articles. And I am ready to do this. I will file on Monday, so I will have to time to notify everyone. Thanks for the input. I'll post a link to the Arbcom case on Monday, too. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Arbcom case has been filed. [7] Steve Pastor (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rikstar, Thankyou for your recent comments the other day on elvis(talk). For someone who is a beginner like me and not computor savvy at the best of times,it certainly is a source of incouragement. Oh by the way,when you said I renewed your faith in wikipedia editing,does that mean that you'll hang in there?,I truly hope so. In my last edit I made in response to user:141,I think I spent about 6hrs on research alone,he certainly knows how to tire a girl,but it's not that part that concerns me so much,as my lack of knowlege with the technicle aspect of editing on Wikipedia,which was made clear to me on my last edit,I don't even know how for example, to place my text under another editors remarks ,say from a week before. It just looks bad. So I will be investing a few days in learning that side of things,which I believe is needed,before I continue with my involvement on the talk page. Just thought I'd share that with you.--Jaye9 (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

After doing all of that work, reluctantly, to go to the ArbCom, I walked away and didn't look back until last week. Now, I can't find any trace of anything ever happening. Meanwhile 141's poison has spilled over into the Steve Allen article. Did you see anything change as a result of the filing? When I see 141, I stay away. It really isn't worth the time. Any thoughts? Steve Pastor (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rikstar, My last edit when on top your last edit,sorry about that. Would you mind fixing this for me please. Mate,I'm going to eventually get this editing caper down pat,sooner or later I hope,thank you.--Jaye9 (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, no problem. Rikstar (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back in action again.Steve Pastor (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I do appreicate your courtesy,you don't have to apologize to me for slightly editing anything that I contribute to the Elvis talk page,as I believe you do this with the best of intensions,feel free to do this it at anytime you see fit.--Jaye9 (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rikstar, I got the story from Elvis Information Network,however they did not say where it came from,however on Elvis Express they have a section called ask Marty and he says the same thing,so I take it that it came from there. I don't know how to go back in and add the source,would you mind fixing this for me please.--Jaye9 (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Thought I would try and be a grownup and fix it myself,looks abit wierd,but oh well I'm trying--Jaye9 (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rikstar, I have been meaning to mention someting to you for awhile now,about my thoughts and how I may be of better use with this article. Firstly, I do not want to contribute to the main page.never have,but I would be more than happy to discuss and site information when required on the Elvis talk page. One problem I struck was that I only owned four Elvis books,which certainly was not adequate under the circumstances. So I spoke to a friend of mine who has just about every Elvis book ever written and we have agreed with the bribe of 1kg of prawns every so often, I can have the use of these books anytime I like. I've just got to find someone who has gender study books,failing that,go to libruary. I think you more or less get the idea of what I'm talking about,this gentleman's information, I believe needs to be looked at and how he interprets that information back into this article. Well I got that of my chest.--Jaye9 (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rikstar. I have started my comments on 141's recent comments,if you have time would you be able to take a look at what I have done and tidy it up where you think it needs it,this would be greatly appreciated.--Jaye9 (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem,that's fair enough. But I must admit I did miss you though,however I appreciate that you life doesn't solely evolve around this artcle. I will be responding to part of 141's recent posts latter this evening,before I have my 3 week break. Also,just letting you know I recently purchased the updated version of Jerry Hopkins book, he's up there,as one of my top 5 favourite Elvis biographers and I also bought a book called "The Life Of Elvis Presley" by Charles L. Ponce De Leon,he teaches history at Purchase College,State University of New York. I've just started reading it and it looks like it will be a very good addition for research in helping improve with this article.--Jaye9 (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Hellow Rikstar, As always, I appreciate your comments and advise and do agree that we should work to together on this article. I will and can help in a few weeks time, if that suites you. For starters we could work on the Elvis phenomenon section, re: exploitation or Presley,I like that idea and the main page. In answer to your question to me,what my thoughts are as to whether Elvis had sex with hundreds of women,the answer to that question, is a complex as the man himself,in saying that, I'll go with Joe Esposito's comments and any other respected reliable source, not some embellished type tabloid comment on that subject. Just quickly, with the main article,go to Sex Symbol to [94],read that part,then click on Relationships of Elvis Presley and go to Devotion to his mother go to [7] read that,the source is from "Rodriguez". I'm curious as to why this source was used. As Lamar Fike says in the book "Elvis and the Memphis Mafia" that Elvis's mother,after taking ill,was put on a train from Temple Texas. Elvis was in Fort Worth Texas, doing his basic training,not in Germany just yet,it wasn't until four weeks after Glady's died that happened. How about we work on that one as well,what do you think?--Jaye9 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the stuff about his Mom is inaccurate in that section. It'll be easy to change. Rikstar (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You are right. There are indeed some inaccuracies in the texts. I did some further research. Elvis entered the United States Army at Memphis, Tennessee, on March 24, 1958, and spent three days at the Fort Chaffee, Arkansas, Reception Station. Between March 28 and September 17, 1958, he belonged to Company A, 2d Medium Tank Battalion, 37th Armor, stationed at Fort Hood (not Fort Worth), Texas. During this assignment he completed basic and advanced military training. Elvis's mother died on August 14, 1958, when Elvis was still in Fort Hood. His overseas service took place in Germany from October 1, 1958, until March 2, 1960, as a member of the 1st Medium Tank Battalion, 32d Armor. He left active duty at Fort Dix, New Jersey, on March 5, 1960, and received his discharge from the Army Reserve on March 23, 1964. Onefortyone (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis

Well done, ive left more long term suggestions on the talk page. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)