User talk:Ringbang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ringbang, 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! --Flockmeal 21:37, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

A page that you joined to help with associate with other members of the Wikipedia community is on VfD. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedian citizens of the world, and the related page Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state. Cognition 09:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your addition of the cleanup notice to Banana slug

I'm slightly skeptical about your choice to add a cleanup tag to the Banana slug article, I'll be open minded about how we can improve the article. In any case, it would be helpful if you described what needs to be cleaned up on the article's talk page. Thanks! — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] APA reference templates

Thanks for your comments regarding my use of the book reference template. It's very clear that you understand the relevant concerns at a far greater level of detail than I do, and I certainly accept your judgement on these matters. It will take me a while to fully digest your explanation and to examine the policy pages you cite. (I had looked at some of them a few months ago, but it looks like some of the discussion/explanation has been expanded since then.) If it would be wise to revert or adjust the change I made to use Template:Book reference you or someone else should go ahead and do it.

I think if there are deficiencies in the template that these should repaired if possible. Editions for chess references is an interesting issue. In most cases that I know of, the edition isn't particularly important since we don't generally give page or even chapter references in chess articles, and most chess books change relatively little between editions. In important cases where the edition really does matter, it's often part of the title, as with Modern Chess Openings. The one area where I think it could really help is chess books that have been reprinted for many years. For example, Reuben Fine's The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings: Algebraic Edition, was published in 1990 (ISBN 0812917561), so it may seem not too old. The book is essentially identical to the first printing (dating to 1948 I think) with trivial substitution of algebraic notation for the original descriptive chess notation, so it is very much out of date. (It's certainly still interesting from a historical perspective, and some parts are still relevant.) It would be useful to be able to indicate that the book was originally printed in 1948, but today you will find it easier to get an essentially identical 1990 copy with this ISBN. Quale 17:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

At Henry Darger, you moved the "Further reading" into the "References" section. "References" are materials actually consulted in the writing of the article. I added some of the "Further reading" listings myself, but I can tell you in all honesty that I have not read them. If you've actually consulted them and used them in the article, or if policy about these headings has changed and I missed it, please let me know. Otherwise, I think this edit was wrong and should be reverted. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there,

Actually, this is a tricky issue since the Cite sources section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines on this point are rather ambiguous. (See this discussion on References vs Further Reading for ensamples of confusion over the matter.)

First, in "Why are references so important", we have:

To credit a source for providing useful information.
To provide more information or further reading.

Then, in Citations in the text:

"Under the ==References== heading, list the complete reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one per reference work.

...

It is often preferable to have a few general references to authoritative overviews of a subject, such as textbooks and review articles, rather than a large number of specific in-text citations for individual facts."

Together, these guidelines seem to suggest one to include both direct information sources and general references in a References section. In the argument cited above, it's clear that some users disagree or are unsure. One could interpret the Style guidelines to imply that if your article is empirically sound and perfectly balanced, it should agree with the general, authoritative resources on the matter, and therefore—ideally—it shouldn't necessary to separate works cited and general references. However, that is not my personal contention. Pragmatic Wikipedians (myself included) routinely elect to separate these materials, but they do so inconsistently. Some users understand References to mean "further reading", and use Sources instead of References; others understand References to mean Sources, and therefore apply it alongside Further reading (as was the case here). When weighing these two approaches, consider that the Cite sources page itself employs a References section replete with general references. For these and other reasons, I have no qualms about putting standard texts into References.

Therefore, for the case in point, I would recommend leaving all book citations in References, and moving the Schjeldahl article to External links. There are very few books in English on Darger, and no one knows much about him; every biography and treatise in the list at this point is a standard text. Finally, in answer to your question: yes, I am personally familiar with some of the source materials cited in the References section. — Ringbang 06:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AFD on The Dumpy Downie Duo

You added the AFD tag to The Dumpy Downie Duo article but didn't carry out the other steps. I have done that for you. You can discuss the potential deletion here. --TheParanoidOne 22:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, TheParanoidOne, I never got back to that one. — Ringbang 14:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sugar Pine

I just saw your addition to Sugar Pine. Thanks for that and for your other contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the kind words! Likewise, I was really glad to see your contributions concerning naturalism and native Californian tribal cultures. The photos are gorgeous as well. — Ringbang 17:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grundig

You changed my edit that the Grundig brand is owned by Eton only in the US back to its original, innacurate form. Alba/Beko own the brandname everywhere else, and operate a company behind it, so I'm reverting --Kiand 18:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You caught me in the middle of a revision. Several recent updates to this article disrupted the chronology. I've revised and merged-in the changes, along with a more detailed description of the roles of Eton, Alba, and Beko. Please take any further discussion of the Grundig AG article to Talk:Grundig AG. — Ringbang 21:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] roar

R, Your cleanup of roar was indeed helpful. It's been something of combination disabig page and actual article for quite a while. that said, I have to ask where you put the content of the article part? I can't seem to locate it. ww 22:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] National Missionary Baptist Convention of America

Hi. I noticed that you added the confusing tag to the National Missionary Baptist Convention of America article. When you have a chance, would you post any suggestions you might have on the Talk:National Missionary Baptist Convention of America page. Thanks. - Rlvaughn 02:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. – Ringbang 16:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at your comments, and see if I can help the article in any way. - Rlvaughn 00:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New user box

Hello Ringbang, It's SWD316. Im giving you the user box for your user page called Template:User Member. It's a user box that says your a member of the AWWDMBJ.... Hope you like it! — Moe ε 03:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World Citizen userbox, {{User:1ne/Userboxes/User world}}

Hi, I noticed the message saying you're a World Citizen, I would like to invite you to add {{User:1ne/Userboxes/User world}} to your user page if you wish to proclaim it in a more effective way, and this template will also add you automatically to the Wikipedians with World Citizenship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I've been a member for like a year, and although I should have labeled it as "sources" instead of "external links" I still linked where I got it from and put copyright violations in quotes.

Fake edit: Okay, I just compared said articles. I did plagiarize. At the time I did not understand the Wikipedia. Thanks for the heads up. --Snafuu 22:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offenbach

Hi, I'm writing to explain why I have reverted Offenbach to the version with French capitalization of the titles.

The reason for this is that we are using French (German, Italian etc.) capitalization (consistently) for opera titles. The guidlelines for operas are explained on the Opera Project main page Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. As you will have seen we are using some English titles and those obviously follow English capitalization rules. Regards.

Kleinzach 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. However, I didn't change the capitalization from French to English form, I corrected the use of French capitalization. Please read the note I wrote about it on Talk:Jacques Offenbach; I think you'll find that my corrections are appropriate for the French language. – Ringbang 17:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I have now replied to your comment on the Offenbach talk page. While I agree with the (American?) writer on the About.com page about there being different ways of capitalizing French, I think if you look at what we have been doing - over some time and many pages - you will see that we have been using one of them.

We follow the French style used by the publishers Macmillan & Co. when they produced the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. That is our reference. We are not trying to invent anything new here.

Hope that is clearer now. Regards.

Kleinzach 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you have also changed La belle Hélène and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Opera Corpus page I have been writing! Is there anything else you have changed? Can you please let me know.

Kleinzach 18:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MA Userbox

Today, there was a merger of Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedian martial artists. This resulted in a userbox {{User:TonyTheTiger/Userboxes/Martialartist}} being added to the category. This userbox is available to you. TonyTheTiger 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery meat navigation

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Mystery meat navigation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Mathmo ^Talk 01:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Gent_magazine_(April_1990;_Chessie_Moore_cover).jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Gent_magazine_(April_1990;_Chessie_Moore_cover).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. Videmus Omnia 17:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gent_magazine_(April_1990;_Chessie_Moore_cover).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gent_magazine_(April_1990;_Chessie_Moore_cover).jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 17:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam in Phonic Corporation

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Phonic Corporation, by Emana (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Phonic Corporation is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Phonic Corporation, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Phonic Corporation itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Whitesnake - Lovehunter CD cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Whitesnake - Lovehunter CD cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Crstsk (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Shirttales.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Shirttales.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Barbi-Twins-Adventures-1a.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Barbi-Twins-Adventures-1a.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.