User talk:Kitchen roll/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kitchen roll. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks but no thanks
Agadant (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- This article is far from finished, I am researching and referencing all the time. Therefore if it may be confusing to the reader for a while, it will soon sort out and if you have suggestions, could you please put them on my talk page and i will check them out. I can't work well with you, I'm sorry about that but there are many articles on Wiki for your expertise, why pick something I have created and am working every day?Agadant (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It's All Over Now, Baby Blue by Van Morrison
Hi! I've just seen your contribution to the "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" article, which is a nice addition. I've taken the liberty of adding an inline reference to support it as well as editing the sentence slightly for clarity. I get the impression that you're a bit of a Van Morrison fan so I would like to ask you something that’s been bugging me for a while now. In the "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" article there's a picture caption stating that Van Morrison recorded the song with Them and also covered it again as a solo artist. Do you know if this is correct? I can find no evidence on the web to support the claim that Morrison recorded the song as a solo artist. Maybe he didn't re-record the song for a solo album but instead, performed it live in concert? Anyway, I just wanted to ask you in the hopes that you might be able to shed some light on this. Kohoutek1138 19:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info and the resources! I'll probably add a little sentence or two to the "Other covers" section of the "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" article just to outline that Van Morrison covered the song in concert rather than on a solo album because as it stands, I think the article is kinda confusing on this point. Thanks again for your help! Kohoutek1138 20:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Your Editing
Kitchen roll, you have said that you misunderstand me because I don't spell out to you everything I am doing, so that is the only reason I am copying these comments over to your talk page also. You will have a copy right here so there will be no room for mistaken impressions. And as I stated, I do have a right and obligation to the articles to check your editing for factual and wrong referencing errors. You are a tempermental teenager that has not yet acquired the abilities to always make sound judgments. That's understandable and to be expected. But unfortunately, and against what you have said, I have always treated you as another responsible adult (as an editor) to my regret at this time anyway. You've also stated that you never read and you say you have a serious vision problem. I have been an editor on these articles for 3 years and have placed most of the material, contrary to what the history may look like. And I am an adult. As they say: "I've been your age, but you haven't been mine." So you may fully expect (and should for that matter) that I will monitor your edits. This is not unreasonable on my part. And does not give you the right to change my edits indiscrimately in return. No need to reply, but if you see I have corrected something you have edited, I am only doing what a responsible Wikipedia editor should do under the circumstances. All the best, Agadant (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Copying over From my talk page to yours also
I had asked you a question and you deleted it and the conversation thread. It's just like being in conversation with someone and them walking off for no apparant reason. You have criticised me in the past for archiving some of my past conversations with you that you regarded as 'current', so what makes what you've done better than what I did, may I ask? One day after a conversation has taken place is not long enough to delete it. When I did it in the past I had given you over a week to reply. I had given you a compremise and you have ignored it completely. I will copy the conversation thread and put it on my talk page, because obviously you select conversations that display you in good light and leave them on your talk page, others you delete. Doing this has lead me to believe that you are not telling me the truth and could be telling me lies in order to stop me from editing. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have a right to delete this junk from my talk page. You have expressed strange ideas of how I am trying to influence you, trying to make you do things and what you thought of me personally for defending myself against other editors...can you please leave me alone to work? I have nothing further to say to you. You are lucky I didn't answer. I actually deleted it all because I thought you would be humiliated to have your illogical thoughts on display. Once again you misjudge my motives. I was trying to protect you since you are only a teenager. But so it goes.....Agadant (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- But yet you do not explain yourself to me before you do these things. I can only take this the wrong way. Maybe you should have answered my question. Yes I will leave you alone, as long as you leave me alone when I am contributing to articles I want to. I will stay away from articles you are contributing to. Good day and sorry for the inconvinience. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine Kitchen roll, but don't think I am going to leave your worst editing unchecked, as you have already said you can not read things right on your computer screen and so may get references wrong, etc. I absolutely will not leave you free to play havoc with "HUGE" misquotes (perhaps libelous for Wikipedia) as you did on "In the Garden". Agadant (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- But yet you do not explain yourself to me before you do these things. I can only take this the wrong way. Maybe you should have answered my question. Yes I will leave you alone, as long as you leave me alone when I am contributing to articles I want to. I will stay away from articles you are contributing to. Good day and sorry for the inconvinience. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have a right to delete this junk from my talk page. You have expressed strange ideas of how I am trying to influence you, trying to make you do things and what you thought of me personally for defending myself against other editors...can you please leave me alone to work? I have nothing further to say to you. You are lucky I didn't answer. I actually deleted it all because I thought you would be humiliated to have your illogical thoughts on display. Once again you misjudge my motives. I was trying to protect you since you are only a teenager. But so it goes.....Agadant (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Listing of covers
Kitchen roll, I think you want to contribute to this and I don't want to seem to exclude you, especially without explaining more in detail. This list may or may not work, because it could easily turn into a junk pile of unreferenced names of every band in history that has ever played "Gloria" or "Brown Eyed Girl" even once and including their high school bands. Do you know what I mean? Even the Dylan one has become a mess. And I hope this one can be kept referenced and with only the more prominent artists on it. (IMO that is the only way to keep it in bounds) But of course, deciding who's prominent is a judgment call. And i shouldn't be the only one to decide that and maybe some I have listed shouldn't be. Do you want to research some you feel should be on there and run them by me on my talk page and also some I have listed we can talk about that you feel shouldn't be? And also I am being selective about references - no blogs, no commercially slanted ones (in other words if they have it for sale on the reference page, I don't use it.) But this is very time consuming, do you understand why I don't want to have to check out new entries constantly and source them? So if you want let's get together on this on my talk page and see how it goes..(COMMUNICATION IS THE SOLUTION!!!, I AGREE) All the best, Agadant (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Reference for Cleaning Windows
Not a good one, Kr.- File sharing. If you know what I mean. I took it off. Here's another link on the site that makes it pretty clear: not good Thanks, Agadant (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, Kr. We learn from our mistakes and we all make them. I'm going to get back to the List soon. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
A Continuing pattern
How irritating. Would you please stop following me around? Agadant (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Bob Dylan articles.
Hi, I see you are interested in improving this article. I am thinking of re-formatting the article. A draft is at User:Richhoncho/Artists recording Dylan songs. Your comments would be appreciated. I certainly have a few queries. Cheers, --Richhoncho (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. With regard to live versions, I'd like to see the title changed to "Artists who have recorded songs written by Bob Dylan" (or something snappier!). I agree with you about repeated artists names, but the reason I did it was so the song titles could be sorted as well. Now with a click of a button we can see who has recorded, say, "Like a Rolling Stone." The alternative would be 2 lists, one by artist, and one by song, also a possibility. Have you thought of popping over to the newly formed WikiProject Bob Dylan? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Since this AfD has yet to be closed, please do not remove the notice informing people about it from the article. Thanks. Adambro (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
List of...
Changed back, this is a known bug. It's worth mentioning, perhaps, that the use of wiki-links in (article) headers is best avoided - mainly for accessibility reasons I believe. Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC).
Van Morrison info request
Hi! You probably don't remember but you helped me out with a little bit of Van Morrison/Them related info a while back and I'm after a little bit more specialist knowledge I’m afraid. I know that you're a pretty big "Van The Man" fan, so I thought I'd attempt to pick your brains. I need some info regarding Them's cover of Bob Dylan's song "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" and my questions are as follows...
- Did the song first appear on the album Them Again (released on January 21, 1966 in the UK)?
- Did the Them Again album chart in the U.S.?
- Was the song released as a single with "I'm Gonna Dress in Black" on the B-side?
- If it was released as a single, when exactly was it released and in which countries?
- Did the single reach the Billboard charts?
Hopefully you won't mind me asking you this info, I really would appreciate any help you can give. I would also be grateful if you could provide reliable 3rd party references to support any information you might be able to provide. The reason I'm curious is because currently the Them infobox in the "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" article says that the single was released in 1966 with "I'm Gonna Dress in Black" on the B-side. However, the only reference to a "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" single that I can find on the vanomatic.de website is a later, 1973 release from Germany with "Bad Or Good" on the B-side. Obviously the song must've been issued with "I'm Gonna Dress in Black" at some point, because there's a picture sleeve of that release in the single infobox - I just can't ascertain when and where this single was issued. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for the info, it's very useful. Myself and Rlendog are currently getting the article ready for WP:GA review and we felt that the Them section could do with being expanded...particularly release info and why the band covered it. So yes, if you want to add some quotes from a couple of your biographies on how Morrison first heard the song and his first live performances of it, then feel free. At the moment the "Them" section starts by saying that the band covered the song - this is where any further info you might be able to add should go in my view. The article then continues with critical comments on Them's cover and these should be moved to a separate paragraph underneath the info that you will be adding. Thanks again. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding that extra information to the article. It's really made a big difference and improved that section greatly. I have slightly changed the wording of your first sentence to (hopefully) improve the flow and syntax but if you don't like my changes, feel free to revert them. I wonder, could you provide an inline reference for the sentence "Morrison's producer, Bert Berns, encouraged Morrison to find models for his songs, so he bought Dylan's Bringing It All Back Home in March 1965." Or is the source for this sentence also Clinton Heylin's Can You Feel the Silence? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, a lyrics change and perhaps Morrison's motivation for it would definitely be relevant (I assume we’re talking about the 1966 Them recording here?). Really, anything that is directly relevant to Them's version of the song, without delving too far into the trivial, would be welcome. If you look at the sort of detail that Rlendog and myself have gone into regarding The Byrds' version of the song, that should give you a rough guideline as to the level of detail we're looking for. However, Them's cover is arguably the most important and influential cover of the song, so it may warrant even more detail that is present in The Byrds' section.
- Thanks for adding that extra information to the article. It's really made a big difference and improved that section greatly. I have slightly changed the wording of your first sentence to (hopefully) improve the flow and syntax but if you don't like my changes, feel free to revert them. I wonder, could you provide an inline reference for the sentence "Morrison's producer, Bert Berns, encouraged Morrison to find models for his songs, so he bought Dylan's Bringing It All Back Home in March 1965." Or is the source for this sentence also Clinton Heylin's Can You Feel the Silence? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- As you've no doubt seen, I've added some discographical info regarding the song's release on the album and as a single but I could really do with some reliable 3rd party references to back this info up. At the moment we need refs to support these facts:
- The song first appeared on Them Again.
- Them Again was released on January 21, 1966 in the UK.
- The single was only released in Holland in 1966.
- That the single was re-released in 1973 in Germany.
- It would be great if you could dig up some references in support of any of these facts. Although, I don't know how easy that will be for you. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links. The allmusic one is fine but Discogs.com isn't eligible under Wikipedia Notability criteria I’m afraid because it's a user submitted database (ie. the general public submit the info on it). I'm sure it's correct and in my experience discogs.com is very reliable but since this article will be undergoing GA Review shortly, a GA reviewer will pick up on that and say it's not allowed. I will add the Allmusic ref though. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi! I think the Them section of "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" is fine now – a good amount of info and nice historical context, so well done in your efforts. There’s only one thing outstanding as far as I can see and that’s an inline reference supporting the release date of January 21, 1966 for the single (as mentioned in the first sentence). The inline citation currently in place at the end of this sentence supports the statement that the song was first released on the Them Again album but not the specific release date of the single. I just wondered if perhaps in one of your Van Morrison books there's a detailed discography or something that states the release date of this single? If so, I'd be very grateful if you could provide me with the author, book title, page number etc, etc so that I can add an inline ref to support the release date. Sorry to have to ask you for more assistance on this matter but your help would be very much appreciated. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry, I was actually getting a little bit mixed up there myself. Yes, we need a reference to support the album release date of January 21, 1966 but we also need another ref to support an October 1966 release date for the single. The ref that is currently at the end of the sentence that mentions an October 1966 release date only supports the part of the sentence stating that the single didn't chart in Holland, not the actual release date. So it's actually two refs we need - one for each release date (or just one ref that covers both). I know that the Rateyourmusic sites state these dates are correct but I'm not 100% sure that ratemymusic is usable as a reliable third party ref. Isn't the info on it submitted by the general public? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info re: the album release date. I've updated the article accordingly, although I haven't added the info about the album charting at #138 in the U.S because that seemed surplus to requirements. However, I have added that chart placing info to the Them Again article instead, so your research hasn't gone to waste. So, all we need now is refs for the Dutch single release. I've taken another look at the relevant bit of the article and I see that the ref currently in place at the end of the sentence in question only supports the fact that the single didn't chart in Holland. So we still need reliable, third party proof that it was only released in Holland and that it was released in October 1966. I've a feeling that it might be hard to obtain good refs for this info, which is very frustrating because I'm sure that both of these facts are correct. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wow! So, the article began its GA review and passed on the same day?!! That was fast and pretty darn painless, I must say. In fact, that was the easiest GA assessment I've been involved in!! I suppose that what that means is that the article was pretty good already and didn't need any further work to reach GA standard. Anyway, thank you for all your help in finding all that good Van Morrison/Them information and for providing the attendant inline references. Your contributions have really improved the article and I have to say, this article reaching GA status is as much your achievement as it is mine or Rlendog's. You contributed a lot to the Them section and to the Other covers section as well. So, I would definitely consider myself an active participant in getting "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" up to GA standard if I were you. Thanks again for all your help. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know what you mean about the GA review being done in 10 minutes flat! On the one hand, this is good news because it makes it incredibly easy but call me a cynic, I don't think that the reviewer really gave the article a full going over. Not that I think there's anything wrong with it and to be honest, it probably is up to GA standard already. But for the reviewer not to query even one thing, one passage of text, or one inline ref is a bit odd in my experience and smacks of a slap-dash job if you ask me. Still, as I say, the article is probably just as good as other GA passed articles that I've worked on, so I'm not gonna worry about it.
- Wow! So, the article began its GA review and passed on the same day?!! That was fast and pretty darn painless, I must say. In fact, that was the easiest GA assessment I've been involved in!! I suppose that what that means is that the article was pretty good already and didn't need any further work to reach GA standard. Anyway, thank you for all your help in finding all that good Van Morrison/Them information and for providing the attendant inline references. Your contributions have really improved the article and I have to say, this article reaching GA status is as much your achievement as it is mine or Rlendog's. You contributed a lot to the Them section and to the Other covers section as well. So, I would definitely consider myself an active participant in getting "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" up to GA standard if I were you. Thanks again for all your help. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info re: the album release date. I've updated the article accordingly, although I haven't added the info about the album charting at #138 in the U.S because that seemed surplus to requirements. However, I have added that chart placing info to the Them Again article instead, so your research hasn't gone to waste. So, all we need now is refs for the Dutch single release. I've taken another look at the relevant bit of the article and I see that the ref currently in place at the end of the sentence in question only supports the fact that the single didn't chart in Holland. So we still need reliable, third party proof that it was only released in Holland and that it was released in October 1966. I've a feeling that it might be hard to obtain good refs for this info, which is very frustrating because I'm sure that both of these facts are correct. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry, I was actually getting a little bit mixed up there myself. Yes, we need a reference to support the album release date of January 21, 1966 but we also need another ref to support an October 1966 release date for the single. The ref that is currently at the end of the sentence that mentions an October 1966 release date only supports the part of the sentence stating that the single didn't chart in Holland, not the actual release date. So it's actually two refs we need - one for each release date (or just one ref that covers both). I know that the Rateyourmusic sites state these dates are correct but I'm not 100% sure that ratemymusic is usable as a reliable third party ref. Isn't the info on it submitted by the general public? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi! I think the Them section of "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" is fine now – a good amount of info and nice historical context, so well done in your efforts. There’s only one thing outstanding as far as I can see and that’s an inline reference supporting the release date of January 21, 1966 for the single (as mentioned in the first sentence). The inline citation currently in place at the end of this sentence supports the statement that the song was first released on the Them Again album but not the specific release date of the single. I just wondered if perhaps in one of your Van Morrison books there's a detailed discography or something that states the release date of this single? If so, I'd be very grateful if you could provide me with the author, book title, page number etc, etc so that I can add an inline ref to support the release date. Sorry to have to ask you for more assistance on this matter but your help would be very much appreciated. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links. The allmusic one is fine but Discogs.com isn't eligible under Wikipedia Notability criteria I’m afraid because it's a user submitted database (ie. the general public submit the info on it). I'm sure it's correct and in my experience discogs.com is very reliable but since this article will be undergoing GA Review shortly, a GA reviewer will pick up on that and say it's not allowed. I will add the Allmusic ref though. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- As you've no doubt seen, I've added some discographical info regarding the song's release on the album and as a single but I could really do with some reliable 3rd party references to back this info up. At the moment we need refs to support these facts:
- Anyway, yes, feel free to have a credit for this GA article. For instance, if you wanna display a GA Userbox (Template:User Good Article) for "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" on your user page, like I am currently, I don't see why you shouldn't. The Them section alone wouldn't have been anywhere near as good without your efforts. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ha ha...yeah, you saw that, eh? I just had to track down a reliable source that gave the German chart info. Originally the article said that it wasn't a hit in Germany (because that's what I'd read on a Van Morrison fansite) but then I kept coming across comments posted on various websites from random Germans that suggested that it had actually been a pretty big hit in Germany. Anyway, I continued to search intermittently but last night I finally located an official website of the German Charts and lo and behold, it turns out that it had been a hit in Germany. I know it’s anal of me but I do feel better now that I've gotten to the bottom of this and that the article is correct. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:VanMorrisonCallMeUpinDreamlandSingleCover.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:VanMorrisonCallMeUpinDreamlandSingleCover.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your tweaks
Thank you for your helpful edits and tweaks to the articles I wrote about the two books on Van Morrison, Van Morrison: Too Late to Stop Now and Van Morrison: No Surrender. Much appreciated, Cirt (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- thanks Cirt. You've done a good job on them, so well done for writing them. (I would reply on your talk page but for some reason my computers blocking it)Kitchen roll (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hrm, that's odd. Yes, thank you for the kind words about my work on those articles, I plan to write a few more within the topic in the future as well. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing. Probably a page for Can You Feel the Silence? by Clinton Heylin should be written, as it's probably the most detailed of his biographies. I could give you a hand on it if you like or any other that you choose to write if you like. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that is probably a good one, I have been doing some research but got sidetracked by Cyber Rights. :P Cirt (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'll try and gather any useful info. I can find on the book for you. I'll add it to my sandbox (which I'll create in a moment) so you can view it there if you like. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay sounds good. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'll try and gather any useful info. I can find on the book for you. I'll add it to my sandbox (which I'll create in a moment) so you can view it there if you like. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that is probably a good one, I have been doing some research but got sidetracked by Cyber Rights. :P Cirt (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing. Probably a page for Can You Feel the Silence? by Clinton Heylin should be written, as it's probably the most detailed of his biographies. I could give you a hand on it if you like or any other that you choose to write if you like. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hrm, that's odd. Yes, thank you for the kind words about my work on those articles, I plan to write a few more within the topic in the future as well. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
You probably will read this in your watchlist but the article you submitted to assessment is already B, which is the higher we can give, got to GA project for further ratings. Zidane tribal (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi.
In order to make this article a B it needs a “Reception” section, also the placing of the profesional reviews in there with the new template removing them from the infobox. Zidane tribal (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I´m sorry, sometimes i fail to explain myself, in a recent discussion in the project talk page, it was decided that the profesional reviews were removed from the infobox and placed in a reception section which the editor were encouraged to expand or place a template of incomplete section. I hope i made myself clear. Zidane tribal (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the single cover image for I Threw It All Away
I just wanted to say thanks. PositivelyJordan (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I somehow missed the message you left on my talk page. Would you still like me to c/e this article for you? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Has anything changed at all?
With 51 albums, 128 song articles, 34 related articles in Van Morrison category, you still can find nothing "Van related" to edit but what I have recently worked on? Your editing on Tupelo Honey is mostly filler on my edits and mostly includes material not necessary on the album article. I removed the Bruce Springsteen songs that were soundchecks from List of artists who have covered Van Morrison songs and you immediately put in another Springsteen cover which was only a portion of "Moondance". Was this really a good edit or just confrontational? It certainly shows that you go over every edit I make as a means of getting your own edits - Either to fill in on mine or to correct any error you can find on my editing. But you don't seem to find all of your own - just mine.....I know this would be irritating to any other editor, not just me. Did you not understand anything we have already discussed ad nauseum. This type of editing is stressful and time consuming for both of us. If it only happened infrequently, I wouldn't complain. Please answer here. I'm a little tired of the way my talk page gets the worst of the arguments. Agadant (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, it's nice to hear from you again. Thanks for your constructive tips, I'll take them into account. As it says on my user page I was researching to expand Tupelo Honey. I just didn't have time to do so. Now, in the school holidays, I have enough free time, as normally I do two activities outside school every week day, and various other things as well.
- To your expanded on what you've already written thing, it's just the same sort of thing as what you've written previously on the article. I have researched it too you know - I'd read everything you added to the article before you added it (appart from the Hage stuff). I used less edits which you seemed to have not picked up on, I'm getting better. Everything I added is the same sort of thing I used for His Band and the Street Choir and the editor who peer reviewed it said it was all acceptable and relevant.
- To your Bruce Springsteen covers queery the song "Kitty's Back" is credited to Springsteen and Morrison in the composer section. Just because the album sleeve artists haven't done there job properly doesn't mean the song didn't feature on the album. Sam Cooke's "Having a Party" is used prominently on "The E Street Shuffle" but that's not credited. All the best Kitchen roll (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- You have had the Tupelo Honey article up on your userpage for many, many months from what I remember and did nothing of any importance other than bleed edits from mine until I started to expand it in depth. All of the pages that are listed as "to improve" I now see on your userpage are articles I've created or shown a history of being actively involved with improving except for the last two. It was a coincidence that I decided to start adding to the albums having time and new resources. If you do the same on the other articles that I am working on as on the Tupelo Honey page, there will be no doubt that with you there is a personal issue. (In other words aggressive, contentious editing). What if I in turn did no editing on the VM pages and just watched your contributions and expanded and corrected on your edits and then posted my new edit count frequently on my userpage? If it's okay for you, it should be okay for me too. Or perhaps would you rather I just quit editing here and let you take over as the sole authority? (your preference, I'm sure) I'm really out of my comfort zone as I don't like attention, confrontation and competition as you seem to. The Bruce Springsteen partial inclusion of lyrics from Moondance is not a cover, in my opinion and I in good conscience could not leave it as such just to avoid trouble with you. Agadant (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind you correcting my mistakes at all; I don't like you undoing most of my edits that's all. Going back to what you said about me never correcting myself, it's because I can't spot my own mistakes because I read it the same way every time; I read your edits with a pair of fresh eyes so I know where you went wrong. I'm sure you do the same with my edits, which would make it better if we worked together. As I said, ordinarily I wouldn't have time to edit in mass chunks like that, which is what you seem to want me to do, but I want to take on board what you tell me. I'm trying to put into practice what you've told me in the past by not editing in huge amounts. I want to be able to work with you not against you and don't really want attention from it all, just acceptance as a useful editor. Feel free to correct my edits. Can we work together on the Tupelo Honey article, try to get it to GA and see where that takes us. I just don't think it's a good idea me significantly expanding lesser known albums because that gives the wrong impression to the reader, like they're somehow more notable than more important ones. I'm looking for a mutual compremise here, help me out if you wish. Take your time about replying and edit what you want before hand, I don't want you wasting any more time talking when there's work to be done.Kitchen roll (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Also I have a question for the Tupelo Honey article. I don't think the album charted in the UK. Do you know why this is, because his other albums around that period charted quite highly, as I think Rogan said it was advertised well, so it doesn't make any sense to me. Thanks I'll take your comments onboard Kitchen roll (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Right, will do. Kitchen roll (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Has Anything Changed at all? Part 2
I must say you are so much more congenial sounding on your talk page than you are on mine. I wonder why that is? But anyway that must mean this is the best one to talk on. Right? I had been actually thinking of taking you up on your offer of working together but was waiting for time to pass to see how things were going. Well, after today I can see that nothing has changed. You put in those reviews from rocksbackpages.com on the albums I had been working on but no others. There were many of Van Morrison's album review pages listed on that site. Why just my recent work to put them into? Wow, even Astral Weeks and you said you were not interested in editing that just a few days ago. I hope you are not baiting me so that you can report me if I revert you. I hate to think that, though. Of course, I had seen that website before but I felt that linking to it would encourage readers to subscribe and therefore it was giving the website new business. Which is not our job here, in my opinion. You know, all I am trying to do here is add new material to articles that I have worked on in depth for 3-1/2 years now. I'm not sure why this is causing such a big problem for you. Are you angry I didn't reply to you? I was taking my time as you suggested and was reconsidering but obviously there are really strong feelings of resentment and competitiveness on your part. I still think it best for both of us if you edit other articles besides my recent work. Agadant (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- And by the way, if the name of the publication is really deemed important to put in the article review box without a rating or a link, I will do it on the articles I am working on as I do think it would save us both a lot of aggravation that way. I'm sure that should be as important to you also, I would think. Agadant (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi again. I think I already explained to you that it's the holidays and I'm so much less stressed at the moment, so I can look at what you've written on my talk page in my own time and think of what to put when I'm not under stress. I'd be just as agreeable on your talk page at the moment. I just want us to get along and was trying to show that I'm researching a lot and adding referenced material to everything that I edit now. I put the reviews on in the order they appeared when you search for Van Morrison on their website, as this makes sense as to not miss any reviews out. I ran out of time when I was editing, because I have places to go and people to see, as I'm sure do you when you're editing. When I got back I couldn't put them on because they'd been removed, and I thought what's the point in starting another argument. So I put it up for discussion on the WP albums talk page, which makes sense to me. It wouldn't make sense to do all this to bait you or whatever, if I've just said I want us to work together. These edits don't affect the article at all that's why I made them, and shows I've done research on the reviews. I thought as I'd found the reviews and everything it seemed stupid to then get you to add the reviews to your articles, as I hope you agree, what a waste of time that'd be. I too had noticed these reviews before, but found them referenced on the article The River (album). Also why would I be angry if you didn't reply to me if I told you to "Take your time about replying and edit what you want before hand", it wouldn't make any sense. Why would I feel resentment if I want us to work together. All this adds up, I hope you see. It'd get a massive weight off my chest if we could both get along. Thanks for your time and keep up the great work you've been doing. Kitchen roll (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Also should I add the reviews to the other articles? Kitchen roll (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean add the reviews to the other articles? Did you understand the answer different than I did? I could have misinterpreted what he said. Agadant (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- The editor said cite the original publication, so wouldn't that mean we wouldn't link to the rocksbackpages.com website but use a reference like it was to a book like: [1] or something
- What do you mean add the reviews to the other articles? Did you understand the answer different than I did? I could have misinterpreted what he said. Agadant (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Also should I add the reviews to the other articles? Kitchen roll (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi again. I think I already explained to you that it's the holidays and I'm so much less stressed at the moment, so I can look at what you've written on my talk page in my own time and think of what to put when I'm not under stress. I'd be just as agreeable on your talk page at the moment. I just want us to get along and was trying to show that I'm researching a lot and adding referenced material to everything that I edit now. I put the reviews on in the order they appeared when you search for Van Morrison on their website, as this makes sense as to not miss any reviews out. I ran out of time when I was editing, because I have places to go and people to see, as I'm sure do you when you're editing. When I got back I couldn't put them on because they'd been removed, and I thought what's the point in starting another argument. So I put it up for discussion on the WP albums talk page, which makes sense to me. It wouldn't make sense to do all this to bait you or whatever, if I've just said I want us to work together. These edits don't affect the article at all that's why I made them, and shows I've done research on the reviews. I thought as I'd found the reviews and everything it seemed stupid to then get you to add the reviews to your articles, as I hope you agree, what a waste of time that'd be. I too had noticed these reviews before, but found them referenced on the article The River (album). Also why would I be angry if you didn't reply to me if I told you to "Take your time about replying and edit what you want before hand", it wouldn't make any sense. Why would I feel resentment if I want us to work together. All this adds up, I hope you see. It'd get a massive weight off my chest if we could both get along. Thanks for your time and keep up the great work you've been doing. Kitchen roll (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- And by the way, if the name of the publication is really deemed important to put in the article review box without a rating or a link, I will do it on the articles I am working on as I do think it would save us both a lot of aggravation that way. I'm sure that should be as important to you also, I would think. Agadant (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- ^ Bangs, Lester. Stranded. 1979
- What does this mean: You'd cite the review prose in the body of the article, if you need to cite anything from the reviews. I thought it meant only use the information on the site in the body of the article if anything is useful and reference it like you are showing. What would be the point of just giving the name of the publication in the review box, well, that is IMO. ( I wrote my last remark above before the last editor answered my question.) Agadant (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think there would be some point in listing the publication in the review box because it shows which magazines reviewed the album at the time, which would be useful to someone wanting to find articles about the album's reception in more detail from the time of its release. Also in the paragraph at the top of most of the articles on the website there is a summary of the review telling you if its favourable or unfavouable, so that could also be used in the review box in the album articles on wiki. Kitchen roll (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why don't you see if you can find anything similar in a FA or GA album article anywhere? If I pick up info on how to do something in Wiki, I always try to use a highly rated article to get tips from. There are many, many wrong edits on Wiki that have been left to stand as is. You can't just go by what someone else has done unless it is in a carefully guarded article such as most of the U2 pages. Those editors usually keep things up to par. Agadant (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Iowa (album) has the NME review as a reference from the magazine, without a link or anything. The Mojo review for London Calling refers without a link to the magazine. These are essentially the same sort of things as what I I want to do with the reviews from rocksbackpages.com. Kitchen roll (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- But they both have a rating, which is important - not just what the prose seems to indicate from the small amount given on rocksbackpages.com and which we ourselves can judge as favourable or not. (Was there any ratings, I didn't see any in the reviews you put up. Maybe I didn't notice) And the articles you've cited also had a page number, which to me indicates the editor had a copy of the article in print. Why don't you do some more searching and maybe the WPAlbums article has the answer. I'm just kind of busy right now, but I don't ever object to including uncontroversial and carefully researched information in the articles (in case you've ever been in doubt of that.) I don't think there's a big hurry to do this, right? Agadant (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Iowa (album) has the NME review as a reference from the magazine, without a link or anything. The Mojo review for London Calling refers without a link to the magazine. These are essentially the same sort of things as what I I want to do with the reviews from rocksbackpages.com. Kitchen roll (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Your New Article
Just surfaced for a minute to see if you had replied to my last post. We'll get back to checking on that ASAP. I'll look too for examples, etc. Noted you created the People Gonna Talk album article and want to say: GOOD JOB! (And in 3 edits too.) You should be proud! Agadant (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Right ok so will I. Thanks, I'm going to add to it later I think. It could have been less edits though, I should have noticed some of the things I hadn't changed :S Kitchen roll (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Bob Dylan Newsletter
Greetings! This message has been sent courtesy of WikiProject Bob Dylan, which you are a member of. Our project now has two Featured Articles: Bob Dylan and Like a Rolling Stone, and three Good Articles: Mr. Tambourine Man, It's All Over Now, Baby Blue and Madhouse on Castle Street. Suggestions are now being canvassed for the next article to work on, as part of the WP Dylan collaboration team. Please voice your opinion here. Regards, --Richhoncho (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Tupelo Honey
Excuse me, but I've done most of the work on Tupelo Honey and now I see you have put it up on your userpage to work towards GA status. [1] This is the reason that it's difficult for everyone to work with you. Your have no consideration of anyone's else's work or feelings. Sure you invited me to work "with" you on it but I had no idea you planned on taking it over on your own, if I didn't agree right away. How can I agree to work with you under the latest circumstances. - ( Your "almost vandalism" to the Bob Dylan song articles) I do suggest you might wait anyway until His Band and the Street Choir gets reviewed. Will there ever be an end to the discomfort you cause from your inconsiderate actions? Agadant (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- All I ever think about is other people's feelings, you don't know me so DON'T jump to conclusions. If my intentions are to improve an article I will do so - I'll happily work with you on it, because at present we have done half the work each. My sole reason for adding the notability tag to the BD song articles was to improve them, as that's why the tag is on wikipedia. The articles at present do not meet the notability criteria - I will try and establish the notability for most of them in future. I made sure I noted WP Bob Dylan and everything before I did anything, in order to ask for advice and other people's opinions, but instead they did not see my edits as good faith which they 100% were. I just don't have any time to do anything anymore. Kitchen roll (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you don't have the time anymore than why don't you relax for a while. There's no one putting pressure on you, in the manner that you do to me when I have other things of priority other than Wikipedia. You are the one who put up that you were working Tupelo Honey towards GA status. Why would you do that if you have a shortage of time? You've really got to stop and start thinking things through a little bit before you act. Agadant (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Coming Up Easy single cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Coming Up Easy single cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
- If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to somewhere on your talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
His Band and the Street Choir
Hi, User:Kitchen roll, thanks for responding promptly to the GA review. I seems we have a misunderstanding about your responses. I was expecting something like Talk:Rocket_Science_(film)/GA1 or Talk:Milo_of_Croton/GA1 or Talk:Amanita_abrupta/GA1. --Philcha (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- The more common problems that non-review comments are mistakenly placed in the GA review :-/ --Philcha (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the The Guidance Barnstar. It was a complete surprise, as I thought I'd been slow and grumpy! But I'll treasure it, as a few reviewers have said improving editors is an important objective. --Philcha (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- It couldn't last - the oocities link died, say my watchlist! --Philcha (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I haven't replied, I've been busy. You could have just failed it, but you put time and effort in helping me to improve it; you deserve the barnstar. The oocities link seems to be ok now. Thanks very much, Kitchen roll (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
VM
As you know, I always keep up with the references for the article. Thought I best let you know I'm not finished just so you don't think I'm gone away and start replacing the Rolling Stone dead link references: I'm taking time researching each instance and best way to handle and also busy in real life. I might work on the Tupelo Honey article with you, that we have both contributed to, if you will hold off for a while. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- No intention of editing VM, as I'm sure I promised you I wouldn't significantly edit that page a while back. You might want to check out the Internet Archive for the RS dead links, as was suggested to me at the His Band and the Street Choir GA review. I've ordered the new book by Greil Marcus, so it should be interresting what he says about the man. I've also been gathering sources on Bruce Springsteen, so I'm able to edit other articles as well. I'll hold back on Tupelo Honey, although I'll be looking for sources to improve it; let me know when you want to start work on the article if you want to go ahead with it. Cheers Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 17:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like I was too subtle and rambling here... but you and I know the real reasons and the discussions that we have had about your self -confessed referencing methods. All the best and hopefully you'll take this in the friendly and helpful manner that was intended. Agadant (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you not accept that people may be able to and actually do grow up? Leave it please (in the nicest way possible) Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 15:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, but since you asked the question: Life has taught me that some actions are due to immaturity (and outgrown) and others are due to character flaws that we all struggle with overcoming for a lifetime. All the best, Agadant (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you not accept that people may be able to and actually do grow up? Leave it please (in the nicest way possible) Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 15:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like I was too subtle and rambling here... but you and I know the real reasons and the discussions that we have had about your self -confessed referencing methods. All the best and hopefully you'll take this in the friendly and helpful manner that was intended. Agadant (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- The reason I mentioned the refs was because I don't want the research that I am doing to be wasted. I know about the Wayback machine but am inclined to look for replacements mostly with other text or sources as they did on the Bob Dylan article. And I want changes to be an improvement not a hurry-up and do it job. Thanks, Agadant (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: Copyedit
- I would love to, but I'm just joined the guild am still learning but I can give you a link to someone who can or at least steer you the right wayUser:Noraft this is the person that can help you. Cheers Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 20:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thanks! ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 18:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
BV
That was not much fun for me and perhaps not conducive to us getting along. But you did get 12 edits out of it so far, and did your best to look like the final authority over the article and me even though, I'm the one who researched and put in most of the material before today. And so it goes... Agadant (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm probably should have left it a while, but you've got to admit the info didn't belong there. To be fair I did contribute there first, so maybe you could have waited a while or something, or give me a buzz on the old talk page. I've also got to point out that if I was the IP editor (who made some very helpful edits IMO) if I was interested in who made the most contributions to the article I'd look at the article history where all the facts are. But if you didn't like it I'm sorry. My sole intention was to make helpful edits.
- Also I noticed you added user boxes like mine on your user page, that you'd previously argued against. I may be wrong here but if that was because of the message above I don't want this user right - I don't even know how to use it, doubt I ever will. I found out that only editors who have nominated an article for FAC get this right, which is a bit weird in my view, because I may never have an article passed at FAC so how does that make me "trusted". Thanks Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 17:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well FYI, the anon editor who has shown up on BV and some of the other articles has been around before and added promotional links to his website, etc., also accusing me of being under employ of VM's people on the VM talk page when I, and others too I think, removed his website link from the VM article He also was blocked for spamming before that. So let's see if perhaps you might back me up if it comes to that again - instead of him. I didn't revert his edits this time but looked them over carefully and asked for sourcing in order to encourage him to contribute in the proper manner. Agadant (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- And I'm still not sure if those links that he put in are considered secondary sources as per the info here: Home page. It says it's a private site. So perhaps another promotional move... I know these things would come out better if we worked together. Agadant (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- (this is what I wrote before your second reply) Hold on there! :) I probably should have looked at their edit history, but I'm not backing them up on any bad point they may have made in the past. Those edits still appear to be helpful, no matter who they came from and referenced as well! (mostly), more than you'd expect from your average IP. I can find sources for all of them if you like (apart from the Herbie Armstrong acoustic set). Now I'm informed next time I see 'im I'll be more careful. Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 18:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- (Second reply response) The info's available elsewhere so it's not much of a problem to replace the sources if you think it's promotional - we can easily reference the material to Collis or vanomatic if you have any concerns. :) Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 18:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think it might be best to reference what you can elsewhere. It's not like he linked to the RockPalast website as it would at first appear. I may not be available for a day or more, so you'll have to look after the fort on your own. "Forewarned is Forearmed". (Although, I really didn't like to discuss it here. But sometimes you do what you have to do!) Cheers, Agadant (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Tupelo Honey
Hi, as I was reading up on tupelo honey and it's source in Florida, thought you might be interested too: [2], [3]. Good job fleshing out the lead in the article. Cheers, Agadant (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll read through these now :) Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 08:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Featured article candidate reviews
I saw your post re reviewing featured article candidates. It seems like people get started in one of two ways. (1) They pick a topic, and a review criteria, and review for that criteria only, or they might review only leads (does the lead reflect the article). If you do this, you might pick make clear that you are only reviewing for this particular element, and you support or oppose based on that element alone. (2) Give a good general review of content and prose: does it stick to the subject? clear? concise? structured? etc. Does it generally cover the subject? Would an uninformed reader understand it? This might be harder, and the review takes longer, but it is a needed step in the process. I'll be nominating an article in a few days, and I'd be pleased if you wanted to take a novice's stab at it. auntieruth (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- See His Band and the Street Choir talkpage for detailed suggestions on improving the article before trying again at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
TP etc.
I don't have a lot of free time right now in the summer months especially. (A lot of projects and travel.) I'm surprised you have so much time to edit considering that you are a teenager and teenagers are usually so very busy in the summer with their hobbies, friends, etc. Some of your edits seem meaningless to me although they do have a tendency to be detrimental in the long run for a good working relationship. Such as you reverting me on the Tupelo Honey album article without checking out thoroughly what you were challenging me on. Here's charted listed in the dictionary in verb form: [4]. And I gave you an example of it used on WP:Albums but still you reverted me! IMO that doesn't look good to any prospective reviewing editor. I never understand your rash decisions and what you base them on, therefore making it really difficult for me to work with you. I wonder though if it's a bid for attention. I hope not! Because if so that is a big waste of both of our times. To tell you the truth, I was expecting an apoligy when I looked on my talk page tonight after being away a few days, but that was not to be. I already commited myself to the TP article so I'll do what I can to do my part of it when it comes up for review, but I have some apprehensions that it might prove embarrassing and negative, esp. for me as I really hate confrontations on the VM article talk pages. IMO, it's an unseemly mess for everyone that happens to read it, but you probably disagree. All the best, Agadant (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Siege of Godesberg FAC
would you revisit this to see if we've addressed your concerns? Siege of Godesberg. auntieruth (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I crossed my concerns off, do I need to comment on the FAC page for the article that they've been addressed as well as doing this? I can see that it's a very good article, but I can't support it because I don't have the knowledge to be confident enough that there's nothing wrong with it. Thanks Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 09:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you need to say that we've addressed your concerns. You can also say that relating to content, you have no way to evaluate, but relating to the other criteria (prose, style, MOS, etc.) you support or oppose. Lots of people support articles on topics about which they know nothing, qualifying support with the statement, perhaps, that they are completely ignorant of the subject, but that the article was interesting, well done and informative. Read the other comments--I think NickD mentions something to this effect. You've read it; there are no grammatical errors, no inconsistencies, etc. We've addressed all your concerns. No one expects you to be an expert in the subject. On the other hand, if a reviewer opposes based on content, he or she had better know their stuff. ;) auntieruth (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think I'm qualified to support or oppose on any of the FA criteria. My English skills aren't good enough for me to support on prose quality, which is what I made a comment on. There may be a lot of prose issues that I will not pick up on, so I cannot support on that basis, although the article, as far as I can see is written well. Thanks Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 19:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you need to say that we've addressed your concerns. You can also say that relating to content, you have no way to evaluate, but relating to the other criteria (prose, style, MOS, etc.) you support or oppose. Lots of people support articles on topics about which they know nothing, qualifying support with the statement, perhaps, that they are completely ignorant of the subject, but that the article was interesting, well done and informative. Read the other comments--I think NickD mentions something to this effect. You've read it; there are no grammatical errors, no inconsistencies, etc. We've addressed all your concerns. No one expects you to be an expert in the subject. On the other hand, if a reviewer opposes based on content, he or she had better know their stuff. ;) auntieruth (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
BV
I know it's there and I know you can use it but I'm trying really hard to figure out what the purpose is for you putting the expansion tag on the Beautiful Vision article? It's not like there's a drove of editors that might disrupt your editing of it is there? I'm the main editor who has worked it in the past and I'm too busy to bother with it right now. I wonder why you don't work on the Poetic Champions Compose or NGNMNT albums or any other one that really is exceptional, instead of this one. Why did you choose it? Agadant (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I got in an edit conflict when I saved a major edit while editing HBATSC, so I decided to add the tag to make sure it didn't happen again. Also you'd written about the same amount for each of the three albums anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is there. I chose this album because it was the first album I ever bought. Also there's massive change in Van's live performances at this point, as he only played a few songs he wrote before 1978 between 1982 and 1984 because of the type of songs on this album, which is quite an interesting moment looking back on Van's career so far. I'd rather listen to BV than the other two mentioned anyway. Thanks for comments :) Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 08:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well that would make sense about the edit conflict in a case like "HBATSC", where it was being reviewed and other editors were helping out during the process and copy-editing as you requested. The difference in the two situations is quite an immense one though - surely you can see that! Some of the later albums are so woefully neglected, sometimes I just couldn't find any more material to put in. I think there's a lot more interest in the two albums I mentioned. Why have you never started the article on Van Morrison in Concert about his live performances as you have mentioned doing? Agadant (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I lost over 30 minutes worth of work and took me another 30 to rewrite it (which is a waste of time) so I decided to put the template up on BV because there is no way that's happening again, no matter how many people edit the page. That brings me to the Van Morrison in concert thing, because I'd written notes for it on a word document on Microsoft Word 2003 and when we moved to Word 2007 all the 2003 saves were lost. Also I didn't know where to start with it - there's so much on VM's concerts, an article about every period in Van's performing career would be too long and complecated (It'd be like all the Bruce Springsteen tour articles put together into a massive article) - it needs to be split up into smaller articles, like "tour" articles for other artists, but VM doesn't do propper tours. Also there's little info on the early 1970s concerts (that's why I'd be much happier writing an aftermath section in album articles). I might write an article when I get my head round all this; have you got any ideas? Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 14:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Know what you mean about losing work before saving it. That's happened to me more than once, not usually edit conflicts but other problems like computer losing network. It's been doing that a lot later. That's why my editing is more fragmented now. Don't want to lose so much at a time if it happens. I'll think about the Concert article/articles and get back with you. Agadant (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 16:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't see you on the watchlist so looked at your contributions and saw where you are reviewing a BS tour article. I noticed that just that one tour article is almost as long as the whole VM article and he has no live concert articles. Just mentioning that because I'm sure you've noticed editors often come on the talk page and complain that the VM article is too long. Goes to show how most of the complaints are unjustified and subjective. I was thinking that it would be a good idea perhaps to start one article and fill it in gradually with concert information and then if it gets too lengthly to start breaking it up by decades. He seems to change directions each decade anyway. So that might be a good way to split them up - or maybe just go ahead and start out that way. It would have to start with the 70s though, don't you think? Maybe a paragraph or two about the late 60s as a solo artist leading into it. (An article about Them's tours and concerts might be interesting.) Agadant (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea. I don't really want to do anything on it now, and you said you're busy at the moment, but it's a possibility in the future. Writing an article on decades would probably be the way to do it. Thanks Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 16:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't see you on the watchlist so looked at your contributions and saw where you are reviewing a BS tour article. I noticed that just that one tour article is almost as long as the whole VM article and he has no live concert articles. Just mentioning that because I'm sure you've noticed editors often come on the talk page and complain that the VM article is too long. Goes to show how most of the complaints are unjustified and subjective. I was thinking that it would be a good idea perhaps to start one article and fill it in gradually with concert information and then if it gets too lengthly to start breaking it up by decades. He seems to change directions each decade anyway. So that might be a good way to split them up - or maybe just go ahead and start out that way. It would have to start with the 70s though, don't you think? Maybe a paragraph or two about the late 60s as a solo artist leading into it. (An article about Them's tours and concerts might be interesting.) Agadant (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 16:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Know what you mean about losing work before saving it. That's happened to me more than once, not usually edit conflicts but other problems like computer losing network. It's been doing that a lot later. That's why my editing is more fragmented now. Don't want to lose so much at a time if it happens. I'll think about the Concert article/articles and get back with you. Agadant (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I lost over 30 minutes worth of work and took me another 30 to rewrite it (which is a waste of time) so I decided to put the template up on BV because there is no way that's happening again, no matter how many people edit the page. That brings me to the Van Morrison in concert thing, because I'd written notes for it on a word document on Microsoft Word 2003 and when we moved to Word 2007 all the 2003 saves were lost. Also I didn't know where to start with it - there's so much on VM's concerts, an article about every period in Van's performing career would be too long and complecated (It'd be like all the Bruce Springsteen tour articles put together into a massive article) - it needs to be split up into smaller articles, like "tour" articles for other artists, but VM doesn't do propper tours. Also there's little info on the early 1970s concerts (that's why I'd be much happier writing an aftermath section in album articles). I might write an article when I get my head round all this; have you got any ideas? Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 14:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well that would make sense about the edit conflict in a case like "HBATSC", where it was being reviewed and other editors were helping out during the process and copy-editing as you requested. The difference in the two situations is quite an immense one though - surely you can see that! Some of the later albums are so woefully neglected, sometimes I just couldn't find any more material to put in. I think there's a lot more interest in the two albums I mentioned. Why have you never started the article on Van Morrison in Concert about his live performances as you have mentioned doing? Agadant (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Tupelo Honey
It was an odd coincidence to see the review for TP would take place the very week I was away and really could not edit at all. You handled it very well and it looks to have been a really quick and easy one, which I guess speaks favourably of our editing work. (Do you think?) Thanks, Agadant (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- That was kind of unlucky. I was expecting TH to go right to the top of the list before a review, like His Band and the Street Choir did. Do you want to try another joint effort on another of Van's albums? Or we could work on albums on our own for a while; I know you're working on SDP and I'm on BV. I've also been seeking info on the lost Van album Mechanical Bliss, so that's another option. What do you think? Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 15:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I continue to have computer issues. It drops the network quite often, so I've got to get this looked at and taken care of before I really want to commit to any big project. Hopefully next week. I'll let you know then what I think about working on another album. Sooner or later, Moondance should be put up for GA. I think it has a lot of information already but does need more work. Agadant (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you're able to get that fixed; it sounds like a really annoying problem. I'll need to run through the sources for the composition section in Moondance at some point and see what I can source to sheet music and remove the rest of the info I added a while back; the sheet music I own has seven of the ten songs in it. I think I might work on BV when I've got spare time; the new Mills book seems to be quite good on songs like "Celtic Ray" and "Northern Muse". I've just got to get my head around the intillectual Alice Bailey stuff - I still don't understand that much. Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 16:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I continue to have computer issues. It drops the network quite often, so I've got to get this looked at and taken care of before I really want to commit to any big project. Hopefully next week. I'll let you know then what I think about working on another album. Sooner or later, Moondance should be put up for GA. I think it has a lot of information already but does need more work. Agadant (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kitchen roll. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |