User talk:Canyouhearmenow/Archive index

question

Hello,

I am David's biographer; I noticed you have very up-to-date information about him - information only his closest friends and colleagues know about. Where are you getting this information. According to David, it is very accurate. You are doing a nice job.

Thanks,

JC Smith

Moved discussion

I transferred your question and comments to the Christian music portal and the new Christian music WikiProject to reach a wider audience. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

New Articles

HEy bud, I wanted to let you know that I started some new articles after finding out that you had lefta note on the wikipage that they needed articles. I started The Hinsons and The Rambos. I also tagged these articles for expansion so that other editors can feel free to work with them. I will continue to add as I get time. I hope this helps towards our goal.By the way; I changed my user name from Junebug52 to this one. I felt it was a little more my style and didn't leave me confused to other editors on if they were dealing with a male or female editor. Canyouhearmenow 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the new articles to the WikiProject's new articles page. I also added them to the appropriate WikiProjects. If I could recommend you use the the proposed structure page as a guide for future articles. We also have various research tools on the main project page that you may find useful. On a seperate note, we're looking for new members for the WikiProject's Southern Gospel Task Force. We need a few subject matter experts to help expand the articles and perform maintenance. Good luck on the new user name. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles

I will try to use the proposed outline, I just want you to understand that i am trying to write these things just to get them started and I have to do it within the timelines with my other jobs and responsibility. I am glad to help, but if there is another editor who can come behind me and if they see it needs to be put into a certain format, let them feel free to do so. I just want to make sure the article is there and they have info to work with. I will try however to use a format structure if I can. Thanks for all your time to this matter! Canyouhearmenow 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Understand. I definately understand the time issue. My only concern is that there are a lot of editors who are too quick to use the speedy delete and notability tags on small articles and stubs. I've been spending a lot of time doing cleanup of articles and stubs over the last few months trying to save the ones I can. The problem is that keeps me from working on articles I'm interested in. An ogre's work is never done. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edit to Study

Hi, you reverted an edit I made to Study. I had reverted edits that I felt were unencyclopedic and informal. My revision is identical to a revision that has been maintained since July 2007. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks.

By the way, your header link points to junebug52. Flatscan (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I do not follow your reasoning, in particular, why my edit fails WP:NPOV. The Study article is a disambiguation page, and it seems odd to require citations on brief descriptions. I was not able to find any relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). The revision isn't really mine — as I noted, it is a reversion to a long-standing previous revision. I can see that the revision that I reverted ("Studying, an excuse used to eat and hang out with friends") could be considered humorous or tongue-in-cheek, but it clearly lacks the primary definition of studying. Flatscan (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing this discussion and putting up with my persistence. I can see your latest point, particularly when comparing my revision to your latest revision (diff), as the description is better with "study skills" removed. However, I still fail to see why my edit merited outright and unexplained reversion. Did you use the Wikipedia:Rollback feature?

In consideration of my difficulty in understanding your points, would you mind if I asked CBD to help us? I noticed that you've contacted him in the past. Flatscan (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting CBD. To make it easier for him to read the discussion, I copied my comments to my Talk page and left him the link. Flatscan (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Sure, I'll take you on. But first, I would like you to have an editor review first. Since you are relatively inexperienced (I don't mean this in a bad way), I think you should try to find where you need to work on before diving into the admin stuff. Will it be okay? I'll take a closer look at your contribs and review you more thoroughly for editor review. bibliomaniac15 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please go to the editor review page at WP:ER and follow the instructions to create an editor review. Please tell me when you are done. Hopefully, you might be able to get some more feedback from other users as well. bibliomaniac15 00:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Look for something that you're interested in. Do you have a favorite animal, or a favorite video game? Those are some good places to start. bibliomaniac15 01:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a cursory check on David L. Cook. The only things I have to say about it are that the references should preferably be formatted better (like with {{cite web}}). Also, you might want to mention what the L stands for. bibliomaniac15 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Use this site to make it way easier for you: [1]. Just choose "URL" in the bar, put in the internet URL, and then you get a formatted website. You can also cite books with this if you have the ISBN. bibliomaniac15 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you are already an established editor, there's no prejudice against users like you participating. In fact, I highly recommend that you take a look at RFAs so that you can understand the community and its processes better. bibliomaniac15 23:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're starting to get active. If you need any help cleaning up or collaborating or citing, I can help you. I do recommend that you join a Wikiproject, like Absolon mentioned. You've done great, so keep it up. bibliomaniac15 21:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Article reviews

I did some cleanup on the articles you requested. You can take a look at the changes and see if you agree. I also wasn't sure of the correct group of Danny Funderburk & Mercy's Way. I have changed it. If the name is simply Mercy's Way then we may want to change the page name and create a redirect page. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You always do a very nice job! The Danny Funderburk & Mercy's Way article is properly credited now. Thank you for fixing that.. I have to say this is a lot of work, but it seems to be moving along smoothly. I will continue creating these articles and opening them up for other editors to expand them. I appreciate all of your help and devotion! Canyouhearmenow 15:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I could help. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. You should mention it in the article. Also, from the GA point of view, the article fails WP:LEAD, in which the lead must be a comprehensive summary of the article, sufficient enough so that if it could suffice as a mini-article by itself. That's the most pressing issue you have to fix, or else it will not pass GA. bibliomaniac15 23:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to put that in, but I have no where I can go to cite a source for the information. How do I get around that? I don't want to put stuff in and then have someone tell me I have to cite it when there are none to be had. Canyouhearmenow 00:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, since a lead repeats whatever is in the main article, it doesn't need to be extensively cited. bibliomaniac15 19:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the main issues to be resolved are citations for the Early life section and perhaps a summary for those sections that have a main page elsewhere. After these issues are resolved, you can ask DHMO for a second look at it or go to WP:GAR. bibliomaniac15 20:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then put the ref of the video at the end of all the information you are citing. bibliomaniac15 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to include a paragraph or two in the Awards section? You shouldn't have any blank sections. bibliomaniac15 21:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

David L. Cook

I've left some comments on the talk page and am having another look at the article again now (more comments soon). Something you may find useful in the future for WP:MOS stuff is User:AndyZ/PR. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 06:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

AIDS dissidence

Please see the article's talk page. I had been discussing the issue with MastCell, and apparently reached agreement about what the article should say. I think it was a clear mistake to change the article. Skoojal (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Skoojal. Generally when you join along on a dispute with two editors, a third party altering something only worsens it. I don't see anything really wrong with the wording of "overwhelming majority." Something to remember is the NPOV does not equal no POV. Now this might be arguable but I think that NPOV is more about representation of views and giving these views the proper weight instead of the thought that every word needs to be weighed for every possible connotation. Negotiate some more if you'd like, but I think that it would be more trouble than it's worth to bring back a dispute already settled upon between two parties. bibliomaniac15 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So would you say that my revert is wrong in total or just arguable? I think it's such a grey area. All I did was to revert an edit while I was patrolling and then I got into this discussion as this editor messaged me. I looked at the rules and it seems to me that the wording was questionable. So, I reverted it. If I am wrong I will go back and revert my edit. Canyouhearmenow 23:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol or the specific article being discussed, but I have a few comments that may be helpful.

• You may want to consider reducing your use of rollback to vandalism only. Bibliomaniac15's Editor review of you mentioned this. The rollback guide suggests using the undo feature and writing a descriptive edit summary.
• I agree that the reverted edit is not optimal per Wikipedia:Undue weight, but I don't think it warranted immediate reversion. MastCell had reluctantly conceded the edit before it was made. Since a discussion existed, I would have made a comment there first.
• Considering recent comments to the discussion, I think reverting your revert is unnecessary.
• Kudos for being consistently cordial in your comments.

Flatscan (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Chuck Wagon Gang

Don't use words like "now" or just say, "such-and-so is 16." People age, things change; all such assertions should say as of what date they were true. In other words, "as of February 2008, Buford was living in a cave near Soddy-Daisy with his blue-tick Beulah Mae (born in 2004)" not "Buford lives in a cave near Soddy-Daisy with his 4-year-old blue-tick Beulah Mae"! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I just added the article and had not gone back to correct these things. I usually do not put wording in like that and would have taken it away. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention! Canyouhearmenow 20:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's okay; gave me an excuse to write Soddy-Daisy! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I aim to please! You may want to take another look at it as I have started to build it now. I have put some definite dates in now. I only saw one place where I used the word "Now" and I took it out. If you see something else please do tell me. Thanks Canyouhearmenow 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yolanda Adams

Boy are you fast. I went to get a sandwhich and by the time I got back you had fixed my "To Do" stuff. Boy are you fast!! I jusy love working with you! I created The Chuck Wagon Gang article yesterday. I will try to get some other articles up and running. Canyouhearmenow 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yolanda Adams is on my watchlist because she's such a notable figure in Urban contemporary gospel. Both she and Kirk Franklin get lots of edits. Thanks for moving the discography and awards info. I had been meaning to do it a while back, but I got sidetracked on other stuff. I saw the The Chuck Wagon Gang article this morning and did some minor cleanup. Hope you don't mind. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, by all means. That's the purpose of us being a part of this wikiproject is to help each other. I seem to get the articles up and running and you come in and fine tune them. I think we make a great team! Canyouhearmenow 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start your admin coaching now. Good job on the David Cook article. The page can be found in User:Canyouhearmenow/Admin coaching. bibliomaniac15 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The letters stand for the number of characters altered. Green means characters added, red means characters deleted. bibliomaniac15 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Well hello there!

It's a pleasant surprise running into you, I'm glad we're both still at it. P.S. David L. Cook is now a first-rate biography, congrats! ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've no doubts that you'll make it through WP:RFA. Editors argue endlessly about adminship and place it on a pedestal, but all you really need is a steady temperament and a working knowledge of policy. Watch out when you get there though, mopping up can get a bit tedious. Good luck, you'll have my full support whenever your nomination goes up. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you friend, that means the world to me! Thanks for your support! Canyouhearmenow 02:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I don't think it's anything to worry about. The template in the links say: "Your appearance there does not mean you or one of the other accounts named here have a conflict of interest with adding the link, or that you or one of the other accounts named here were spamming the link: it may very well be accidental overlap, or a good link that was picked up by the bot accidentally, or a good link which is nonetheless under investigation of the WikiProject's Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam." bibliomaniac15 00:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just dont want anything bad against my name. I know that all I did was revery vandalism on those pages. I guess that puts you in that bots way. It does look like it was done by a bot. I guess I will not worry about it for now. I have been working on reviewing some of these editors for RFA's and have been chiming in on votes. I have also been doing some editing and reverting of vandalism using rollback. I answered your questions and posed some of my own. So when you get a chance, if you don't mind let me know what you think. Oh and thanks for everything and for being so patient with me! Canyouhearmenow 00:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA's

Thank you for your message - and your support vote. Only a couple of hours to go now on what has been a surprisingly nerve-wracking week, "no big deal" or not. Best of luck with your admin coaching, and I'll keep an eye out for you around, generally, and your own RFA in due course more specifically. _GB^T/C 14:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to use a template in Wikipedia:Template messages/Merging and splitting on both of the articles and striking up a discussion in one of the respective talkpages. When a consensus has been reached, then you can proceed to merge the information and then redirect. bibliomaniac15 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Overall, you're doing very well. You're on the right track. The only problem is that you are a little uninitiated on policy, and it certainly is very daunting to understand. You don't need to worry right now about how you would do in an RFA or as an admin. All you need to do is keep working and reading. When you have worked and labored hard enough, and don't have any significant lapses in civility, you will be ready. RFA depends a lot on your merits. As long as you are diligent and kind, there's no need to worry. And right now, you're on that track. bibliomaniac15 02:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes me feel a lot better. The RFA is not of any concern to me. It is the fact of learning what I need to know so that I can be respected in the community. That is more inportant that moving for adminship! Canyouhearmenow 02:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you reverted the wrong edit. Personally, I think both definitions are pretty much correct, but I think it would be best if the Wikipedia definition corresponded with the Wiktionary one. bibliomaniac15 03:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition the editor originally gave was attached to studying. I reverted that edit in the beginning and that is when the editor then linked it to study group. I never reverted the edit to that one. The edit I did was up ontop for studying. Then I put the correct disambiguation in there. I was waiting on CBD to get back with us so I never reverted the edit the editor placed back on which of course was study group. Thanks for fixing it for me. Canyouhearmenow 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Study (again)

Thanks for your comments. I have replied at my Talk page and will continue the discussion there. I will likely be editing less frequently in the immediate future, so let me know if you would like me to leave a message here also to notify you of my replies. Flatscan (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. My wikibreak should be over soon, and I have no plans to stop editing entirely. Flatscan (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Gospel music

I saw in the history that you didn't add the link. It was added by an unregistered user. The same IP address added the link before and I removed it. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Subpages

I think you've done an excellent job. The only thing I see might need some expansion is the short subjects section for Bob Hope and the corresponding subpage. Have you ever considered joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography? bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have been a member of that group for a long time. Thanks for the review! Canyouhearmenow 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You have some questions in your admin coaching page. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have had the flu and have not been moving to fast.. I wonder if there is an article that has a miracle cure? Can you give me a day or so to get facilties back? Canyouhearmenow 00:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Lana Turner

With respect, reverts don't require discussion, and I feel that the edit summary I gave was sufficient. The split you made looked like a fairly simple cut & paste job, so it's not like I was undoing a lot of effort on your part. I certainly hope that you can bring the article up to GA standards! However, I disasgree that the filmography needs to be in a seperate article. As it stands, Lana Turner isn't that long for an article, and the filmography section is quite compact. A split now seems somewhat premature, and IMHO it's better to have all the information in one place. Regards. PC78 (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bette Midler

Maybe you should check the pages for Whitney Houston, Celine Dion, Madonna, Dolly Parton, Britney Spears, Kylie Minogue ect. They are done the exact say way as the Bette Midler.

RE: Lana Turner (again)

IMO, splitting a reasonably short article into two even shorter ones does nothing to make it more "efficient" or "tidy". If you're not already familiar with the guideline, you might want to take a look at WP:SIZE. By all means go ahead and revert the article again if you feel it necessary; the chances are excellent that I won't be making any significant contributions in the next month or so. But I would urge you to show some restraint when it comes to splitting articles. PC78 (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary S. Paxton

On the discussion page for Gary's article, you say that you are a friend of his. Perhaps you can help clarify something. The article states that he was shot in the head five times. I can find nothing that supports this, apart from sites which appear to be themselves referencing this article, and even the page cited as a reference for this fact says nothing about him being shot in the head, and indeed says two of the bullets remain in his shoulders. His own web site says that he was shot three times and says nothing about being shot in the head. If you know of a good reference for this fact, or perhaps can get Gary to clarify on his site, this point in the article can either be verified or cleaned up. Darguz Parsilvan (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

CSD

WP:CSD is probably the best place to look at the criteria. You don't need to focus a lot on all kinds, for example, you could just go for the obvious vandalism pages. You can also head to Wikipedia:New pages patrol for more information. bibliomaniac15 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Logo

One minor problem with your logo, I unfortunately can't make any animations with logos (I don't have a GIF animator). I will start with the logo now, but cannot make the masks rotate. I can do the rest of the things, though. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 15:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That is fine if they dont spin. The logo is very nice and if I can do anything for you just ask! Canyouhearmenow 15:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:SIG, you can't have images in your signature, so that would not be possible. I could fix your icons, though. Could you give me some ideas on what to look for for each one? STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 14:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:AIV

Hi again! I believe my comment and the other user's comment were of a bit different nature. I was just pointing out that there are some templates and tools that can help you with warning vandals in a manner understandable by bots and commonly used by other editors while the other user expressed his confusion over the fact that the user hasn't been warned properly (my comment described how to warn vandals properly, you can read more info on that here) prior to being reported to the AIV. Thanks again and I hope I cleared the things up for you :) AVand^talk_contribs 14:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

Thanks for the encouraging note. Off-wiki circumstances forced me into an unplanned wikibreak, but I'm back now. Flatscan (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiya

Haven't seen you for sometime. I'm glad to see that you're up and at 'em. I'll look over it more closely later. From a preliminary skim, it looks like it can make GA with a few changes. Just break up the bullets in the Legacy section. GA reviewers want just about everything in prose. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 04:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The prose is spot-on. I think more citations should be included though, since reviewers are particularly anal about practically everything being cited. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lucille Ball

For books, you should use the {{cite book}} template. You can make this easier by going to the web citation site I showed you, switching the menu to ISBN, and putting in the ISBN-10 in. If the ISBN is available, it will automatically generate a cite book template. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Information-wise, I think it's very expansive. I think you're dead on about the lead. It should focus more upon her accomplishments rather than her death, which takes up quite a chunk. The radio appearances can probably be merged into the main body. I would also caution you on using web sources. For such a notable character, there should be plenty of print sources on her. I can help you cite with print sources if you'd like. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My warning to User talk:12.26.86.253

You are 100% correct that this was abject defamation and could hurt Mr. Cook. The edit summary "Defamation not specifically directed" is what is Wikifolk mean by exactly what this editor did. "not specifically directed" means not directed at another editor - that would be a "personal attack" vs "Defamation". Rest assured, that user will be swiftly blocked if he/she defames again. We typically don't block on the first offense unless it's a threat of violence or something along those lines. Toddst1 (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing what I can. I don't think I have the capability to do that. I think that requires oversight, which I, as an admin, don't have. I've listed it on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#David L. Cook. You might want to chime in there. Thanks for the report. Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Lucy

Another admin protected the page, so it should be okay for now. I'm going to take a look at the lead later today after I get home from a meeting I have at 5:00 eastern. Nikki311 18:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that WP:RPP for protection would have been better than your choice of WP:AIV, since they have a dynamic IP. If the matter is really serious, go to WP:ANI. You've worked on it quite a lot, right? Take a break for a while, I suppose. bibliomaniac15 03:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I actually went on AIV to report the user and the Admin suggested that because they are an IP address that he semi protect the page. So, it was the admin that did that, not me. As far as all of the editing, I am ok with all of that. It is just the little things that people throw at you that keeps you moving along. I am not really complaining as much as I am kidding around with you. Although it may sound like it! Canyouhearmenow 03:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

GA

Yeah, I saw it on my watchlist. Well done you! Take a break, or move on to another project? bibliomaniac15 03:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: next GA

I'm currently too busy to do much article writing/sourcing right now (even on my own projects, unfortunately). However, I can always make time to do a peer review for you. Just let me know if you ever want me to. Nikki311 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Criterion validity Blossom Rock Terry Rossio Danny Clinch Arthur Treacher The Tender Land Ruthless People Reggie Lucas Melissa DiMarco Ernest Tidyman Royston Tan Heiner Lauterbach Gillian Anderson Dominion High School Detlev Buck Kumiko Aso Rosewater Moira Shearer Show Business at War

Cleanup Larry Hagman Grammy Award for Best Metal Performance Tim Artz Merge Smash Mouth Nutmeg Drug resistance Add Sources Neha Dean Martin Phyllis Diller Wikify Shirley Caesar Craig Montoya Expand Entrance examination Shirley MacLaine Tim Allen

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) 00:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Lucille Ball talk page

An anon IP unarchived the entire Talk page tonite. I re-archived everything except for the last 60 days, one of which was only two weeks old. I think recent talk should be on the current talk page, in light of WP:ARCHIVE. JGHowes ^talk - 03:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the date stamps for the recent msgs, without stopping to read them. Having now done so, I've moved it back to the archive where you had it in the first place. Again, it was anon IP151.203.250.9 who did the unarchiving en masse in the first instance without explanation, as the History shows. JGHowes ^talk - 04:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: What in the world is going on?

Just doing a bit of cleanup as I've taken a break from the project. BTW, thanks for the reverts to my userpage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you leaving Wikipedia? I see your page says No Longer Active? Please tell me you are not leaving me here to handle all of this craziness!! Canyouhearmenow 22:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been active since February and I have too much craziness to deal with in the real world right now :) Best of luck to you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Patricia Routledge

I notice you have been editing this article to indicate that Ms Routledge's "active" career started in 1961 (when she was already 32) rather than 1952 (when she was 23). I can assure you that 1952 is in fact if anything rather late and Ms Routledge's stage (as opposed to television) career was already well established at the start of the fifties, as you could easily verify for yourself. I realise that your edit here was probably under the impression you were correcting vandalism - but please, do check this one before you revert it again! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words

I quite agree that "twenty-eight" is better than "28" here, but I could find nothing in the MOS to support your assertion that everything under thirty should be spelled out. Regards, Darkspots (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, however, when I was working on getting this article to GA status, I was made aware that this was what I was to do. [2]. I am unsure as to where the information was gleened from, but I followed that and have now always implemented what I was told. Canyouhearmenow 02:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's no big deal--you were told to spell out all numbers under a hundred. Check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words, if you like. Plenty of gray area there. Regards, Darkspots (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you one. bibliomaniac15 19:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. You can also encourage them to visit Wikipedia:Contact us if they have any additional problems. bibliomaniac15 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

invitation

Hi there Canyouhearmenow!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

- -The Spooky One (talk to me) 06:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Candi Staton

Very nice of you to say so! Thank you.
I look forward to reading your findings. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you back

If you go into "My preferences," click the tab that says "Gadgets." Under browsing gadgets there is a checkbox that says "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner." It'll allow you to turn off the banner on your computer.

Anyway, I haven't seen you in a while! Hope you're doing okay in RL. What projects do you plan on working next? bibliomaniac15 23:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I am going to go into the Christian Music articles and start creating some new articles. There seems to be a backlog of articles that need to be created. Since I am an historian in the entertainment field, it would only be natural for me to go somewhere that I know a lot about! LOL Anyway, I have turned that off a long time ago in my preferences. What I am talking about is that if you look at my user page and talk page you will see that my logo os been pushed into the wikipedia logo at the top of the page. I can't seem to fix it no matter what I try to do. Do you have any suggestions? Canyouhearmenow 03:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Er...what browser are you using? In Mozilla it doesn't quite cover the default page title. bibliomaniac15 04:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried an edit in Internet Explorer, but I'm not sure I'm seeing what you're seeing. bibliomaniac15 04:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I edited User:Canyouhearmenow/title. Since it apparently doesn't work anymore for both talk and user page, you might have to put in the whole code into your userpage and experiment via Show preview. bibliomaniac15 04:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok I will try to do that. Thanks for your help and its great to see you again! Or write to you again? One of those...Canyouhearmenow 04:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What is veropedia?

I don't know what it is? Lawtonlawdawg (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It was another branch of wikipedia that was not editable. Once the articles reached WP:GA status it could be moved to Veropedia by a member or admin. Veropedia does not exist any longer but I have not removed it from my page because they said they were working on bringing it back. thanks Canyouhearmenow 17:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to put the citation into the body of the text.All i am able to do is provide the link to Enlighten which is at the bottom of the Southern Gospel Page.CTRUPS Ctrups (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of David L. Cook television appearances

I have nominated David L. Cook television appearances, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Cook television appearances. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

re: David L. Cook Television Appearances

The reason I nominated this article is because not only is it entirely unsourced, but also not notable. That isn't to suggest that Cook is not notable, but Wikipedia is not an discriminant collection of information. This information belongs on IMDB, and has no place on Wikipedia. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, please show me where there are specific guidelines that say this article can not include a subpage which outlines a filmography, television or music discography. As far as being unsourced, this information is easily channeled back to IMDB which is a source in itself. This is not a discriminant collection of information. It is just information. IF we use this as an arguement, then we are going to have to rewrite all articles that show an individuals body of work and simply put references to web sites only. Canyouhearmenow 04:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, because with a discography or filmography, that work constitutes the artist's main line of work, or at least works central to their career. David L. Cook did not host these shows, he appeared as a guest on variety and talk shows. Should we have a page for every minor author or musician who has appeared on The Tonight Show, The Daily Show, Good Morning America or Regis and Kelly? No. It's fine for Cook to have a discography, because that is what he does for a living. Television appearances are just promotional. It's like listing every commercial McDonalds has. It's just not important. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I beg to differ. Cook has won several Emmy Awards for his work in television. I just reviewed the cites for Wikipedia is not an discriminant collection of information. Again, I do not find any rule or specific instance where there is a violation of the articles framework, nor do I find where this guideline applies to this arguement. In fact, it states that it should be included if it is giving reason to the subjects notability. The fact that Cook appearered on these television shows and was not the host, does not constitute that his participation was any less that the hosts or any other artists on the show. Someone appearing on the Tonight Show certainly would use that in their propaganda as well as many forms of public consumptions. Please define yourself as far as why you are using the arguement of Wikipedia is not an discriminant collection of information. Thank you Canyouhearmenow 04:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

David L. Cook and David Cook are two different people

The guy who graduated from Hofstra three years ago and took an entry-level job at NBC sports [3] and is listed as having worked on Emmy-winning sports program, David Cook, is not the musician David L. Cook. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand your reasoning for reverting my Kirk Talley edits. Talley doesn't deny the homosexual extortion attempt -- he's gone on television to admit it.

If I'd revealed 'Kirk Talley is a CIA agent', that information, if true, would be harmful to him. Because it's a secret. The extortion case is public record. Beyond that, it can be found in numerous places on the internet, substantiated, as is the wiki article, by reputable press.

If Talley thought the information was as harmful as you believe, he wouldn't comment on it. My edit is not original research, nor does its inclusion change the way Talley is viewed in public. This is an encyclopedia. For someone who claims to be a historian, you should know that sins of omission are, at best, misleading, if not fraudulent.

The edits are returning, and a copy of this is going on the talk page.

By the way -- Cambridge and Julliard are not Ivy League schools. --68.36.136.73 (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This matter has been listed with [4] I am not above being wrong, but I want to do whats in the best interest of the article. I am offended that you took a personal pop shot at me and my abilities as an historian of popular music and arts. Not to mention to go even further and insult the institutions to which I have allegiances to. Canyouhearmenow 02:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't insult the schools. I called your facts wrong. The Ivy League consists of Yale, Harvard, Dartmouth, Brown, Penn, Columbia, and Cornell. If you want to be seen as trustworthy, check your facts.

And I didn't insult your abilities, either. I called it dishonest to omit a matter of public record from this article. Note that my standard for the article goes BEYOND the 'possible harm' clause: the subject ADMITS to the matter in question. He's done so on television. He obviously wants to get it before the public, but you don't.

By the way, I could've intimated that your stated interest in 'Christian country music' calls your feelings about homosexuals ('harmful'?) into question, but that would've been faulty logic. I'm a professional, and I stick to what I can verify.

Talley got extorted by a man who claimed he met Talley in a gay chat room. That statement -- which makes no judgment on perpetrator or victim -- meets any burden of proof required by Wikipedia. You have not addressed why this is potentially harmful, or how this information would significantly change what's known about Kirk Talley. --68.36.136.73 (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you're in touch with Kirk Talley, who has asked you to 'use good judgment' about his page because the extortion attempt 'hurt his family'. Answer me this: should we wipe Monica Lewinsky off Bill Clinton's wiki, just because Chelsea Clinton can read it? And doesn't your contact with Kirk Talley constitute conflict of interest?

You say a 'pop' was taken at you. You were corrected. Take a breath. --68.36.136.73 (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)