User talk:Boomur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Flood additions[edit]

Hi, I've added the reviews from the four UK weekly music publications (NME, Melody Maker, Sounds and Record Mirror) to the critical reception section – feel free to edit these and move them around as you wish. The reason I left the Record Mirror review out of the album ratings box is not just because the box is not supposed to contain more than ten ratings, but also because of the four magazines it was always viewed as the least credible and most 'teen pop' orientated, which is undoubtedly true (but we're not talking Hello! or anything similarly vacuous, it certainly covered alternative music as well and I remember articles and reviews of the first two TMBG's albums in there back in the late 1980s).

One other thing I would mention: you have the European release date down as a week before the US release in early January. I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but I have a reference from the NME issue dated February 24 that states that Flood was due to be released the following week, which would suggest the UK release date was February 26, 1990, although seeing that most of the UK reviews are from March 10 onwards I wonder whether the release was delayed a week to March 5. Anyway, one thing we can certainly state is that Flood was not released in the UK in early January, but late February at the earliest, which would tie up with "Birdhouse"'s UK release as well. Did you have a reference to back up the January 8 European release date? Richard3120 (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks Richard! i have to apologize; i genuinely forgot that i hadn't added in the articles you found till yesterday. i planned on adding them today, but i'm glad you got to it first because i was sort of unsure of how to go about it and i really like your prose. i'm replying from my phone right now, but i'll review the release date information once i can get on a computer. thanks for the note and for your help in general! ~ Boomur 16:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd actually forgotten I'd sent you the quotes in the first place! The reason I'd added them now is that I'm off on Thursday to Colombia so my internet access will be intermittent for a few weeks, and I thought I'd better do as much editing as I can before I go. Richard3120 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, i looked a bit more into release dates. it's still pretty hard to tell what exactly the correct date is. as far as i can tell, there are about four possibilities: January 8, the date found on TMBW, which a friend tells me can be found in a paper review that he has (although he does not have it on hand at the moment—he claims the date is mentioned in the past tense but this is impossible to verify at this point, so i think it's moot); January 12, which is printed in a German press release (scan here) but doesn't seem to have any other weight; February 26, based on your reasoning of the NME review; and March 5, based on the fact that all 5 UK reviews were indeed published in March. aforementioned friend just informed me that another review anticipates a January 5 release date. it's safe to say the release got pushed back at least once. i agree that late February/early March is most likely, but since it's not possible to determine a more specific date at this point, perhaps the safest move would be to just say "1990"; maybe we could include a note with an explanation of the uncertainty? that is, if it's possible to condense this into something coherent. ~ Boomur 18:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
actually, i'd like to just have my friend (Aselfcallednowhere) comment directly on this discussion, so i think it's best if i start a new thread (perhaps with some information from this thread) on Talk:Flood (They Might Be Giants album). is that all right with you? ~ Boomur 18:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Looking at that German press release, "veröffentlicht" means "published", so I am wondering if the date of 12 January actually referes to the date of the press release rather than the album itself. It is pretty clear that this is only the first page of the press release and that there was at least one more, by the way it only goes up to 1986 and the release of the first album: I wonder if the other page(s) would actually tell you Flood's proposed release date, if we had copies of them. Scratch that, I've just found the second page, and it makes no mention of a date. :-( Richard3120 (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I had the same suspicion about the German press release, it just seems weird to me that they would include the date of publication and not the album release date (but i don't really know the precedent for German PR). the second page (which i extremely roughly translated here; first one here) doesn't have any more date-related information, except their German tour dates.
BUT, i've started a new thread at Talk:Flood (They Might Be Giants album)#EU/UK release date, so let's direct our attention there. ~ Boomur 19:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Impossible colors[edit]

I reverted your reversion of my edit on impossible colors. While original research is usually not acceptable on WP, on some topics of a particularly subjective matters (such as the experience of color), it would be hard to argue that what a scientists sees with their eyes is any more reliable than what a large number of people can see. Also, if you Google "stygian blue darker than black" you will find other references; virtually none of them are scholarly or "reputable" sources, but that's more to do with the fact that it's really hard to scientifically describe subjective color perception in a precise scientific manner. (Heck, even regular old blue is hard to define as one scientific paper may say it's light between 430-460nm and others say 410-440). —CodeHydro 16:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

first off, sorry for taking so long to reply; my computer has been acting up so i haven't been able to get on wp very much. but more importantly, my apologies! i misunderstood your original phrasing and took it to mean something much different from what you had actually intended. but, i'm glad to have set up the stygian WP:BLUE joke. nice work. i might modify the wording slightly to clarify it a bit more, but i can see that the content itself is apparent enough that it doesn't need to be cited. ~ Boomur 18:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you![edit]

Bubble Tea.png Cool (aesthetic) Mike Kabinsky (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
B) ~ Boomur 17:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think there's a misunderstanding here. By putting your comments above those made before yours, you are making it appear that a) your comments were made first and b) other people were replying to your comments when they were not. I have only edited the layout and indentation levels and attributed your comments, which are not considered bad practice per WP:TPO. I apologize for any misunderstanding, but my intention is to make the talk page more cohesive and easier to understand, not to alter the content of your messages. Though I would advise you to try to be more civil in the future.
Please note that to sign comments you simply have to type ~~~~—adding spaces will break the markup and will not leave a signature. ~ Boomur 10:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
What don't you understand? I was responding to two SEPARATE comments from two SEPARATE people! Regardless, you have no right to fiddle with someone elses comments. But then, what should I have expected? This is the wikipedia after all. No wonder you people are struggling to find editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, you were "fiddling" with comments by placing your comments outside of chronological order, and I did not edit the content of your comments. I only put them back into chronological order. The hierarchy of replies is based firstly upon the number of colons indenting each comment, not on the order of the comments. Please see Wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelines for more information. I am simply a Wikipedia editor, and I do not represent Wikipedia by myself. Please do not direct your hostility toward me. ~ Boomur 05:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
In addition, please do not edit my comments. Unlike layout fixes, "grammar" corrections are not considered to be good practice, as noted in the template message you left for me. I have explained on my userpage my tendency to often use lowercase letters. ~ Boomur 05:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
You rock! Satisfriend (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

re: thanks![edit]

No problems! I added some more info from the Rolling Stone article to the page, so feel free to tweak, move, or edit what you like. That page is really quite awesome... I remember a few years ago when it was nothing but a skeleton of an article. Have you thought about taking it to GA review? I'd highly suggest that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gen. Quon: thank you! I am hoping to do some work on surrounding articles, such as "Birdhouse in Your Soul" soon as well. And yes, I nominated the page for GA review back in October, but it hasn't been reviewed yet! ~ Boomur 03:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess I totally missed the fact that it has been nominated! Your work on Flood has inspired me to work on Apollo 18 a bit (that's probably my favorite album by them... it's been awhile since I've listened to it).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
That's swell! I wrote a lot of the Apollo 18 article as well, but I was a Young Wikipedian then (well, younger) and lost momentum after a while. It is looking great! Maybe that one can get up to GA as well. The Flood book also has a good bit of information about their first two albums (and those are jointly my own favorites), so I will probably go back to those two soon too. ~ Boomur 05:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated Apollo 18 for GA, and I co-nominated you since you did a lot of work to the article and I think it only makes sense for you to get credit (you've done a TON of work). Is that OK?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gen. Quon: of course, that's fine! thank you for including me in the nom. I'm eager to see how it turns out. :) ~ Boomur 05:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Gender edit[edit]

The edit in the gender section was inappropriate, so I returned it, as noted. Please address the point in the talk section that noted my edit addressed a blatant contradiction in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxx12345 (talkcontribs) 23:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

i don't really see a difference between the two phrasings, so the main reason for my rv was to fix the grammar. ~ Boomur [] 01:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I commented on it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)