User talk:Curly Turkey

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



Gasoline Alley 1921 Walt trying to catch a turkey (panel 5).jpg
Je suis Charlie.jpg
Archive
Archives
The Signpost
21 January 2015


Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Curly Turkey,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Curly Turkey,
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Thank you for the kind thoughts and for all your consistently excellent work through the years. Last year was a hard one, both physically, thanks to medical ailments, and on Wikipedia, thanks to a plethora of Wikitrolls. Colleagues like you make staying here worthwhile. Here's to a better year to all!
--Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Little Sammy Sneeze[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Little Sammy Sneeze you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


GA nomination question[edit]

Hi Curly Turkey, I noticed 4 or 5 days ago that you opened a review page for an article that I had nominated (Hidden Treasures (EP)), however, in the days since, I have heard nothing from you regarding the review or the article. Were you planning on communicating with me in any manor regarding this?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I've been waiting for you to say you've been through the article to make sure everything's got an online cite. Have you done that? Once you have, I can continue. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The point I have been getting at is that I generally expect a degree of communication during these things, regardless of the content, or lack thereof, of the article in question. Can't say I've seen that here. Heck, you've have talked to Retrohead more about the article when he wasn't the one who nominated it! (No disrespect meant to you Retro). Additionally, I had left a few comments and made a few fixes (though definitely not everything wrong with the article) on the article, had you bothered to check. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
L1A1 FAL: Sorry about that. After your initial comments, I assumed you'd notify me when you got everything sourced, or at least after you'd dealt with those "Will look into"s—especially given that's exactly what I said in the opening to the review. Given how much hadn't been sourced, I assumed there'd be major enough changes to the content that I thought it would be best to wait until that was done before finishing the review. I contacted Retrohead because (a) he contacted me first and (b) I knew he had access to sources since he'd done the Megadeth FA. With no activity on the review page, it doen't show up on my watchlist to remind me to return. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, ok. So its just a misunderstanding then. Sorry for coming across in an irritated manor. I've had increasingly bad interactions with other editors and reviewers, and as a result I take exception to stuff increasingly easily anymore. I'm frustrated almost to the point of leaving to be honest. Back on topic, I assumed you had been keeping an eye on the review page, no big deal though. Probably not going to get to it tonight, but I'll revisit the so-far-listed issues on the page, fix what needs fixed and I'll get back to you shortly. As for the rest of the page, we can deal with it as it comes along.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe that between myself and Retrohead, the initial issues previously pointed out have been addressed. If you could proceed to inspect the following paragraphs, that would be great--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, new stuff fixed, or at least addressed on the review page--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I've addressed the two iffy sources you pointed out--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I just saw today that you passed the article. Just wanted to say thanks for reviewing it. Take care!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

American Arts Commemorative Series FAC[edit]

Hi Curly. I just wanted to leave a note of thanks for your efforts and review at the FAC for the AACS medallions article. I noticed your correction of the 'notes' template; I'll remember the way you did it in case I need to use those in future articles.-RHM22 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Little Sammy Sneeze[edit]

The article Little Sammy Sneeze you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Little Sammy Sneeze for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

… about the meltdown. Holidays, house guests, a visit to the ER and FAC. What can I say? Except I'm sorry you got in the line of fire. Btw - also, I cringed when I realized I'd jumped from cr to cy right over cu when idly posting xmas greetings while waiting for a delayed flight to arrive. So - better late than never - here's hoping you and yours have a wonderful 2015! Victoria (tk) 02:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks—I've been waiting for the flurry of edits to die down before returning to the FAC. Hope your January will be a bit more fun (we've got an influenza case at home, but it hasn't got to me ... yet ...). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It hit me unexpectedly hard at a bad time, but as they say, stuff happens. Anyway, I finally got a chance to review my files and think I'm finally finished at the FAC. Stay healthy! Victoria (tk) 02:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Moi aussi[edit]

Je suis Charlie.jpg

Et tu, Brute?[edit]

McLean DH Vanity Fair 1897-04-08.jpg
William Dudley Ward, Vanity Fair, 1900-03-29

Can you fix this article? Coffee jelly. And Tokyo Banana too Black Thunder (chocolate bar) looks fine though.- Hafspajen (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean copyedit, or do you want me to hunt down sources? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Takoyaki stall at Azabu festival in Tokyo
Both. Do you eat this stuff? Hafspajen (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't like octopus—it's so chewy. The rest of my family eats it frequently. I'll see what I can do, but I honestly don't know where I'd start. I can't believe someone found enough sources to make Black Thunder a GA. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm ... perhaps it's not even Japanese in the first place, and just happens to be popular there (my wife has some once in a while—I don't drink coffee, let alone eat it). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
And Plymouth Rock Coffee Jelly Recipes (1920) Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Noo, not a GAFace-smile.svg. Do you eat it raw? Hafspajen (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Octopus? I've seen on TV where people ate it live (!!!), but I don't think it's normally eaten raw. It's definitely cooked in takoyaki (the "yaki" means "cooked"). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah. So it's not sushi. And your sign you have ? Hafspajen (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • You mean sashimi. Sushi doesn't require raw fish—sometimes the fish is cooked (like with anago), and even more often there's no fishi in it at all (just vegetables or whatever). I'm on the fence with Je suis Charlie. At the moment, I think the two articles should be merged (rather than deleting one). Only time will tell if it really merits its own article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you Japanese. I thought shushi was raw fish. Hafspajen (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Books and Bytes - Issue 9[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
  • Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Here[edit]

is a turkey for you. Probably would make an excellent featured picture in about a week. (time required for a pic to stay in the article before nominated.) Hafspajen (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Plate 1 of Birds of America by John James Audubon depicting Wild Turkey.
not this one though, just for fun

[1] Hafspajen (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo discussion[edit]

Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for participating in the photo discussion. I really appreciate it. One thing: A new photo has been uploaded and added to the discussion. I hope I'm not bothering you by asking if you would mind indicating whether this changes your viewpoint, or whether it remains unchanged? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

I was wondering why you deleted the RS-supported fact that she was identified as a suspect, here? Nor can I tell from your edit summary why you did so. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: The word "suspect" may not appear, but if "possible accomplice of Coulibaly, and is being sought by French police" doesn't make that clear, then Jesus Christ! If it makes you feel better, change "possible" to "suspected". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
A "person of interest" and the like may be a possible accomplice who is sought by the police; they may be someone "involved" in a criminal investigation who is not suspected of committing the crime by the police. A "suspect" is a significantly higher level. It is a known person who the police have put into the category of people they officially suspect have considered a crime. They are different things. When you delete suspect, you delete something very material, in a section about the person. Epeefleche (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
It's immaterial now as I've restored the word "suspected", but when someone is sought as a possible accomplice to a crime there's no way to interpret that but as "suspect". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea why you think this was an improvement. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "is a suspect" is different from the non-technical "is suspected." It has a technical meaning. Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it a difference that matters in the context? It someone is being sought as an accomplice to a crime, is there a context in which that does not carry the technical meaning of "suspect"? This article isn't a court document, remember—we want it to be as readable as possible. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Certainly. Once can be "suspected" by the police, without having been declared by the police a (in her case, an "armed and dangerous" ...) suspect. We want it to be both readable and accurate and also to convey precisely, not in a vague way. Everybody suspected by the police is not a police-designated "suspect." The verbiage of The Independent is both readable and precise: "police named her as an "armed and dangerous" suspect". Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's finer a distinction than I'm able to comprehend, but I'll take your word for it. I'm likely not alone in finding that the wording appears redundant. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This may help. Every person who is accused of something at a trial and defends themselves is not a defendant -- the Plaintiff could be accused of something. Every person who the FBI very much wants is not an FBI Most Wanted. Etc. Epeefleche (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

MOS Query[edit]

Please point out where in the manual of style that the lede not to be considered part of the article. Thanks Dolescum (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Dolescum: The whole reason the lead is not required to have citations is because those citations must be in the body. Further, the lead is a summary (per MOS:LEAD) of the body—if you include something that in the summary that's not the thing being summarized then it's not a summary. This is also why the User:Ucucha/duplinks script doesn't register a link as a duplink when it appears for the first time in the body even though it already appears in the lead (install the script and then try it on, say, Ukiyo-e—you'll notice that Edo period appears once in the lead and again in the body, yet doesn't get highlighted as a duplink).
Need any more evidence? This is very, very well established, so I trust you'll stop with the reverts. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The link isn't my main reason for reverting CT, it's WP:SAWW. Your edit means that that specific text ('Islamic prophet') is now in the article twice after I specifically cleaned it up earlier. Note the policy: Once per article. Now are you going to keep reverting that text back into the article? Dolescum (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've read WP:SAWW, and you're obviously misreading the spirit of the letter. The lead is a stand-alone summary of the article—you cannot summarize something that is not in the body of text being summarized. Notice WP:SAWW does not say "Once per article"—it says "when it is the first reference in an article". The article itself being the body, of which the lead is a stand-alone summary. Just think of how ridiculous this would be—a "Background" section detailing the offense of depicting Muhammad—the central inciting incident for the attack—but that does not once bother to state who this "Muhammad" guy is? Please take a moment to ponder this before any further hairsplitting. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the lede is a summary of the rest of the article, but it is also an introduction (as the relevant MOS page states) and itself a part of that article. As an introduction, it's obvious that it's the location to introduce users to who Muhammad is, given that the dude is mentioned there. I don't think I'm the one misreading things here, CT. Dolescum (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
So you simply ignored what I wrote? Or you seriously believe the "Background" section should just skip out on telling the reader who the central character in the controversy actually was? Perhaps we should leave the number of dead or the names of the shooters out of the body as well---it's all redundant once it's mentioned in the lead! Ditto the dates and locations of the attacks ... Try bringing it up with the MoS people and see if any of them take your WikiLawyering seriously. You're damaging the body by removing a key background detail. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I read what you wrote. I think you're wrong. Introduction via the lede will have already framed which Muhammad is under discussion. There is no need to repeatedly reframe the context for readers. I also note I'm not the only editor to have removed this text]. Dolescum (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
So you simply refuse to address how a summary could summarize something that doesn't exist in the text behind summarized? Right, right, right: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Oh, and "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Unless it's trivial (pronunciation keys, alternate spellings, etc), we simply don't put things in the lead that aren't in the article. Who Muhammad was is a key detail in the background of the article. I mean, Jesus Christ: "There is no need to repeatedly reframe the context for readers"—?!? Just what do you think the entire lead is, then? These details are framed once—in the body—and are summarized in the lead. You're not seriously going to dispute that, are you? If you are, your dispute is with Wikipedia, not me. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. Take it up at the talk page. I have. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I'm sorry you're frustrated with me. I wish there was a way to send you cake over the internet by way of thanks for your civility. Dolescum (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer FAC[edit]

Hi, you have commented at this. I think as of now all the points on all the reviews are responded to, and either settled or awaiting a response from the reviewer (mostly the former), so you may want to revisit it. I'm sorry some of you have had to wait a while for this. There has been a lot of activity, both on this page and on the article itself, as well as the holidays. It's been great to see so many people getting involved in this. Many thanks to you and all reviewers and editors! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll definitely get back to it, but it may not be right away—I'll have to refamiliarize myself with it, and it's a fairly long article on a topic over my head. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Cease your blaming of Muslims[edit]

Your continued edits blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few Islamists is sickening. I assure you that if you keep this up you will find yourself topic-banned. Abductive (reasoning) 07:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coco (cartoonist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Parisienne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Love It to Death[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Love It to Death you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie hebdo/muslim population[edit]

btw - where you have put that information now, I think is good - it flows better in the story of the magazine in a way - and in a way it made me think - -of course they will make cartoons that upset this religion at this point because its more visible - in the nineteenth century they would have been just focused on the catholic church and Calvinists or whatever. and it doesn't imply anything sinister about the religion - it just joins all the other religions for the secularist left to have a go at.Sayerslle (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, thanks! Let's see if it'll stick. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comment: Curly Turkey, I have read much of the discussions of the edit warring at this article, and I hope you will appreciate an outside editor's thoughts and advice. While I have noted you are very often on the right side of any discussion as you are an intelligent, experienced, and respected editor, you are very often aggressive and you normally fail to communicate "with a view to explicitly cooling things down" (as recommended in the "Handling of edit-warring behaviors" section of WP:EW. I believe you would fail any WP:RFA, for example, were you ever to attempt such an action, as they value this skill. In my opinion, you are respected for your accuracy, not your attitude, and it is surely possible to be respected for both. In myself, for example, I try to achieve this (but it is difficult, I know) for I have seen other editors do so. I hope you will consider these thoughts and recognise that I am not offering them in any desire to be right, but that I am offering them in kindness and thoughtfulness.

Before I go, I must of course express my shock at how satire was attacked by this terrible event. When I first heard the news, I thought immediately of the satire of both Harvey Kurtzman and Mad magazine, and I thought about how much you and I respect the publication of satire. Where satire is discussed in this article, I'm glad you are there to ensure the article gets it right. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I could probably be more tactful, but I doubt it'd be any more effective with partisans who cover their ears, anyways. It's a good thing I have no aspirations towards adminship, eh? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe you would be more effective with them. Everyone is a person who doesn't want to get their feelings hurt. You've been around wise people who have won your respect, despite a difference of opinion, haven't you? Well. there you go.
Hey, some wiki gossip: Our fellow editor Neelix was wikihounded to the point of resigning last week. Prhartcom (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I heard something about that on that deletion discussion (you commented there, too, didn't you?) I don't know the details. It's hard to be tactful with people when they editwar to tell you not to start an editwar. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I saw that; those are the times when we could choose to be even more annoyed or we could choose to just laugh. Sometimes something disguised as a trial is actually life becoming more ironically humorous and bearable! On that deletion discussion there was an editor who flatly stated he disagreed with what I said but also stated he respected the way I said it. I went to his talk page and told him I respected him as well, and we found something to agree about and left each other with mutual respect. That was a win; if I have to disagree with someone, that's the kind of disagreement I strive for. Prhartcom (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Those things happen. I seem to remember some friction when you and I first came across each other ... Formerip has made it clear to me, though, that he's only interested in fillibustering the discussion. We're not having a "disagreement", he's simply generating a long list of baldfaced lies. I'm going to try to reboot the converstation at Charlie Hebdo shooting with a mind to changing the tone. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Good for you. Hopefully your new tone will pleasantly surprise them and lead to something positive. Of course it won't work on everyone but I'll bet it will work on some. And the others could actually have a valid point too. Yes, the details between you and I have faded but I remember with shame some friction between us and have resolved to try to never let that kind of thing happen with anyone again. I even remember letting you down in some way. You probably weren't fishing but while I am thinking about it, please accept my apology for whatever that was. I'm sure I could have handled it in a calmer way. BTW, I finally got Masterful Marks: Cartoonists Who Have Changed The World in the mail today; will start reading it now and add it to Annie later. Prhartcom (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice. I just got Craig Yoe's Barney Google book; I haven't gotten around to using it much on Billy DeBeck, but I probably will this weekend. One of these days I'll get my hands on Barney Google & Snuffy Smith: 75 Years of an American Legend and really finish off the article. I hope to get back to copyediting Annie this weekend, too. I'd've done it by now if it weren't for Charlie Hebdo. Normally I steer clear of political articles, and I think you can see why. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I tried, but it doesn't surprise me in the least that Abductive would first recommence his editwarring (with another claim that the "material is against the now well-established talk page consensus" that has been beaten into the rest of us) and then start pointing fingers and saying what we've added is "disgracing the article". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I saw that. I'm sorry that those editors are like that. As an interesting exercise, try to understand them. Get inside their minds and be them and try to figure out why they are like that. I think I can understand them. They are on the side of the vast majority of innocent Muslims and who can blame them. Unfortunately look where their compassion has lead: to illogical and unfair banning, unproductive and lazy refusal to offer counter proposals, and mean-spirited and immature rebellion. And that's just the dissenters going in the one direction. But understanding them is an important step: people want to be understood (you want to be understood, right?) It could lead to productivity and actually accomplishing a workable result. Try extending an olive branch. Ah well. I does seem a little hopeless at the moment. Imagine how the administrators feel. I appreciate how that one editor summed it up a few hours ago. But it really isn't that important to "win". There are lots of other areas to work on here. It's interesting to hear you talk about historic comics that I didn't know existed. There is so much out there, isn't there. Prhartcom (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I know what you're saying, but there's a big difference between an Abductive single-mindedly trying to "set the record straight" and a FormerIP whose motivation is to stir the pot—it's not like he can pass for believing the manure he shoveled on that discussion. A "difference of opinion" that wasn't. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I honestly thought Gamebuster was going to come out against the content. 03:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right when referring to trolls, that's what they do, but even they could be motivated by a valid point sometimes. It's almost a game; treat people with the respect they crave, take the high road, and see what happens. It's exciting when it actually pays off: I believe the editor you mention was genuinely surprised when you stopped being predictably loud and started being unpredictably wise; you were not as two-dimensional as he realized he himself was behaving. Notice how he took a break to cool off and then came back with a compromise; we could all learn from that. I was glad to see you agree with his compromise, why wouldn't you, you're reasonable. Now let's get that new paragraph in the article. Prhartcom (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Unrelated, blatant canvasing request: Could you please stop by Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Nonspecific date 2 and consider Supporting? Crisco 1492 and Dank have already looked at it very closely. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I am really sorry about what happened. We convinced one of them to be part of a rational discussion and resolution but certainly did not convince two other hardcore editors. It's interesting what we can pick up from their writing style; their sentence structure and vocabulary is unimpressive. Here is what I have been able to pick up: M is an Algerian. He has been an editor for just over one year. He doesn't usually contribute to articles himself; he mostly only reverts material that others have written. Lately, almost the entirety of his contributions to Wikipedia are to this one Talk page. His motivation is obvious: he cares about Muslims. A is an American. He is a botanist/biologist. He has been an editor for just over five years. He touches on an impressively wide variety of Wikipedia activities. His motivation is less obvious; although he exhibits the hallmarks of a typical troll—emanating immaturity and acting the schoolyard bully—it probably stems simply from a blinding determination to always be right. He cares about no one. Other people are all fools, he says. This person is probably a huge geek.
I don't know about your stamina, but mine has exhausted. When the other person keeps saying "Nuh uh!", it's boring to repeatedly keep saying "Uh huh!" It's just not that important. What is important is that you yourself kept your head. You did not let lesser beings drag you down to their level. If you decide to walk away, you can know, as I have verified, that you would walk away with your dignity (and sanity) intact.
I have been in your position. Some were pretty difficult. Once, it was me against four others. They all "owned" the article, a BLP, and banded together to ensure the article of their hero was censored. I wanted to add some truth that had occurred in the subject's life, but they prevented it at all costs. A year later, I was able to add the information.
Cartoonists Who Changed The World is wonderful. I must admit, even though the book arrived, for some reason I did not open it until a few hours ago. It is all comics! Reading it now. Prhartcom (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I've done that. I bought an ebook version of Brian Evenson's Ed Vs. Yummy Fur, and I've barely touched it to finish off Ed the Happy Clown—one of the first articles I put serious effort into, and it's still quite far from finished. Meanwhile, I've spent the last week on anything but (not just the Charlie Hebdo stuff—I just put up Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary for GAN, and I think I'm close to doing the same for Art Spiegelman). It's a weird form of procrastination—I'm not actually putting off editing.
Frustrating situation. I know I can't report it because tehre are FormerIPs waiting in the wings to obscure things. I'm going to leave it until someone closes the RfC. There's no way an admin will close against (though they may rule "no consensus"). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ugh—maybe the Spiegelman article's not as close as I thought. I was just trying to clean up the references and a few other things, but now that I've taken a quick look at the prose, it's gonna need a pretty thorough copyediting. It's almost all my prose, but it's as if somebody else wrote it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Hbedo[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You have no right to remove the Template:Relevance-inline template that I've added, especially after reverting what I've deleted. Furthermore, you refuse to answer my questions. MoorNextDoor (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
MoorNextDoor: Broken record time again:
  • Your questions have been answered repeatedly, but YOUDIDNTHEARTHEM (again).
  • You have yet to make even the pretence of demonstrating WP:SYNTH. Why? Because there has been no SYNTH, of course.
  • You've been reported for your editwarring against both myself and PuffinSoc. It doesn't look good that the one supporting you is Abductive, who just got off his own 48hr block for the same thing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Love It to Death[edit]

The article Love It to Death you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Love It to Death for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Relevant Messages.[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Curly Turkey. You have new messages at Gamebuster19901's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Curly Turkey. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just wanted to let you know that there are relevant messages in those two pages. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Two things about Puppets[edit]

Hey Turkey, can you provide an audio sample about some track of the album? I don't know the procedure, but I think the article would benefit since we don't have any illustrations from this period about the band. And about the music analysis of the title track, you think Master of Puppets (song) would be more appropriate for these information?--Retrohead (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I can do an audio sample, but do you have a suggestion for what would be a good one? As for the adding info---which info did you think was better for the adding article? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I've thrown in an audio file. If it's not what you had in mind, I can easily whip up something else. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Silly me, I haven't noticed we've got audio of that track. I'll contact you if I have something particular on mind. By the way, how's the article shaping? I still have some words to add, but so far, how does it look?--Retrohead (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
We didn't have the audio file; I just uploaded it. Give it a listen and let me know if you'd rather have it done differently.
Oh, sorry, now I understand—there was already a file. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The article certainly looks closer to comprehensive. When you're through with it, I think the lead will need a re-write to reflect what's in the body. The one thing that really sticks out at this point is it's still missing what I would consider sufficient background on both the band and thrash metal. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 10, 2015[edit]

Hi Curly. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the text down to a little over 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 21:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see anything important that's missing, but "Having its origin in the German Expressionist movement, the typically socialist work" almost sounds like it was typically socialist due to its German Expressionist origins. I don't think the "German Expressionism" bit is important enough to keep if you wanted to drop it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Good point, done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TheBookOfJimCover.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TheBookOfJimCover.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Harvey Kurtzman[edit]

Curly Turkey, do you own a copy of the book: Mike Edison (2011) Dirty! Dirty! Dirty! (which I see you once used as a reference in Harvey Kurtzman's Goodman Beaver) and if so, can you please consult it for references to Kurtzman's Little Annie Fanny? The book is not available online. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hmmm ... I definitely don't have it, and I don't even remember it—though obviously I was the one who added it, since I'm the one who created the page. I wonder how I got that page reference ... maybe it was accessible on Google Books at the time, but they've since removed that access? Sorry! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks anyway. It's not at any of my usual local libraries either. Maybe it's not be the kind of title that appeals to librarians. I don't really much need it anyway; I believe my sourcing is now complete for that article. BTW, I scanned and wish I could show you portions of large panel Elder drew for Annie '​s 20th birthday party showing Kurtzman and Elder acting up in the corner, and with Hef in the middle saying "More nudity!" (and his executive editor turning around and saying, "More nudity!"). Prhartcom (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Is there no forum where you could post it, maybe? I get the feeling that Dark Horse will be reprinting those Annie books. I don't have a source saying so out loud, but it looks like the plan is to reprint the three Kurtzman books that Kitchen Sink did in the '80s (Goodman Beaver, Hey Look!, and Jungle Book), and since they already have the rights to Annie (and Kitchen was involved with those), I'd be surprised if they didn't follow up with deluxe new Annie editions. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe Little Annie Fanny is done for now and ready to get in line at GAN. I'm interested to hear your comments. I'm very proud to have contributed to the Harvey Kurtzman comics universe. Prhartcom (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • It'll be a nice addition. One thing, though: I don't think the File:Annie-Fanny.png image contributes anything to the article that you can't get from the other two images of her, so it may fail the threshold of what constitutes Fair Use; on top of that, it's causing sandwiching with the infobox. I'd drop it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks! And as for the image, I was afraid of that; I apparently knew that already. But that leaves a big blank spot though. What is this sandwiching? I don't see it; must not have the same browser or something as you. Prhartcom (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Sandwiching is where text flows between two images. It can be problematic on small screens. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah, big screens you mean. When I maximize and increase resolution I see it. Prhartcom (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Well, it happens more often on big screens, but it's usually only a problem on small screens, where, if it happens, it can make the text hard to read. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the usual copy editing, it always helps to have a second pair of eyes. As for this edit, a quote won't go over well in a caption? Oh and I meant to ask earlier, about the first line in this edit; I like to start my section with a pleasant introduction of some sort before getting right into it; is there really a problem with this sentence; perhaps it just needs to be rewritten instead of removed, and if so what would you suggest? Prhartcom (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean; another caption in this article has a quote, but it is attributed in that caption. This one is attributed in the article body, and I had assumed that was enough. Prhartcom (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
As to the first one: unattributed quotations are always a no-no. In this case, I don't think it's a good quote, anyways: it's someone's subjective opinion, but comes across as a statement of fact. It's the kind of quote that's appropriate in the context of a section that puts it in context along with other opinions, but singling it out like that gives it undue weight.
As to the second one, it's the kind of thing you'd commonly see in, say, magazine writing, but isn't really appropriate in an encyclopaedia—it's saying in many words what can be said in few. It's one thing to prefer a "zest"-y (but factual) wording to a flat one, but it's another thing to append "zest" to the text (even if factual). The sentence doesn't add any information to the article as the facts it contains are implied but what follows. It's not the kind of thing that would kill the article's chances at GA, but it's the kind of thing you'll find copyeditors nuking. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that explanation. I do try, after valiantly trying to achieve every requirement for encyclopedic writing, to take it one step further within limits and try to bring some sort of feeling to my writing, especially in the first and last sentence of a paragraph or section. I have succeeded at this in the past but I have also missed the mark, as you can see. Perhaps I will try to add some sort of introductory sentence later and run the sentence by you. I really do appreciate that feedback. Prhartcom (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
A rule of thumb is: if you can cut out a word without losing readability, then you probably should. Encyclopaedic writing doesn't really lend itself to much "zest", so I'm proud of myself when I can sneak in the odd "vast voids which engorge themselves on the drowning bodies", but that's not really what encyclopaedic writing is about: it's about getting information across to readers succintly and clearly. The twists in the writing can't be at the expense of succintness and clarity. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What a valiant effort you have attempted with the Comics article. I can think of no one better to bring such an intimidatingly large subject to GA and then probably FA. Good luck with it. Prhartcom (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I'd love to see that at FA, but I'm not sure. It was a particularly difficult article to put together, because all the sources are garbage. Well, not all, but the ones that aren't garbage are limited in scope (Gabilliet's is rigorous and excellent—but only comprehensive as a historical perspective on American comics). Comics "scholarship" is an embarrassment—there are still comics "scholars" who claim straightfacedly that comics is an American invention. I feel like actually producing an FA-quality article on the subject would amount to borderline OR—because the "reliable sources" simply aren't reliable. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Prhartcom, the image of Hefner is going into the references section. That's likely to cause trouble in reviews. Have you considered using a crop of that image, and the {{Multiple image}} template? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I am happy to crop it; thank-you Crisco 1492 for the suggestion. I assume you mean a head shot cropped from the original, positioned so as not to interfere with he references section, uploaded into Commons as a new filename, referring in the new description to the original image. I didn't know that an image shouldn't interfere with the references section or that it would be called out in a review. Now, as for the Multiple image template, no, I haven't ever tried it but I'm sure I could, and how would it help here? Prhartcom (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You could have Hefner and Kurtzman side-by-side, which would mean no white space issues, and you wouldn't have to lose one of the images. The issue with images near the references section is the amount of whitespace it leaves; rather unattractive. I don't think we actually have codified any policies or guidelines about it (WP:WHITE is a help page), but if you can avoid it, why not? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

c/e on Tomislav Kezarovski[edit]

Hey Turkey, I need some copyediting help of yours on Tomislav Kezarovski. Judgind by your "Je sius Charlie" tag on the top, you'll be interested in this one. Kezarovski is the only imprisoned journalist in Europe for a published article in a magazine (ironically, he is from my country).--Retrohead (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I can give it a ce, but the sourcing has serious issues that need to be dealt with. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll provide sources, not a problem. If the English ones don't cover the entire case, I can use the Macedonian, which are overflowing with information. And thanks for the help, it's really appreciated.--Retrohead (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I saw a mix of DMY and MDY dates—I settled on DMY, but feel free to change it if you think MDY is more appropriate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm done. The prose really wasn't too bad, but's it's a pretty unbalanced article—it's about virtually nothing but the arrest rather than the man himself. Hopefully you can flesh it out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrohead: Ooh—I'm not sure that cartoon will be found acceptable under the fair use rules. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, I can not credit the author because he is unknown, but whoever he is, I don't think he would mind using his work. I forgot to mention in the article, but that painting was a "gift" for the government, and kind of symbolizes the demonstrations.--Retrohead (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I can guarantee you that kind of thing will not go over well—not only is it a legal issue, but the cartoon isn't even mentioned in the article, so it would not qualify as Fair Use. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Removed. On the positive side, his punishment was abolished. Now we wait the English-language media to report it, so we can update the article.--Retrohead (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sharaku, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phaidon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Tomislav Kezarovski has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

  • Well, I didn't create it or add any content—just did some minor copyediting—but if someone wants to throw some credit my way, I'll eat it up. Face-wink.svg Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Curly Turkey/Archive/2014#Tsugaru-jamisen[edit]

Hey Curly, I'm finally getting down to working on the article for Tsugaru-jamisen. Were/are you still able to talk to your neighbor about obtaining a clip for demonstrative purposes? I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oh, I totally forgot about that—rather, I thought I'd run into the guy and that would jog my memory, but I never did run into him. I'll have to get on it. Even if I can't get one of him, I imagine I should be able to get one somewhere. There's a shop that sells shamisens etc not far from where I work, for example (and actually, that might be a better place to ask...). Keep on my case and you'll get your video. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    That's fine, thanks for the update. We've both been busy with other stuff. I'll send a reminder your way in a week or so. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 25 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Two grammar questions[edit]

Curly Turkey (and anyone else who is talk page stalking), here are two grammar questions. Like you, I'm pretty good at grammar, but I am wondering about these; I haven't found the answers yet, only a gut feeling. Do you know?

  1. Do we need the word "that" for this sentence, and is there a rule? "The person stated the thing was something" or "The person stated that the thing was something"
    • In the case of "stated" and "said", if the object is a direct quotation, then you cannot use "that":
      Robert said, "It's only lines on paper, folks!"
    • If it's otherwise paraphrased, then "that" is prepended to it, although English being English, the "that" may be only implied:
      Robert said [that] it was only lines on paper. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    Regarding your first bullet above: I tried to choose a sentence that would allow you to focus on what I was asking (Do I insert the word "that", or not?) and failed completely, as you thought that I was asking about MOS:QUOTE, which is way off the subject. Here is my question again; which of the two is correct: "He showed us the ring he purchased" or "He showed us the ring that he purchased"? Here it is again, which of the two is correct: "She decided he was right" or "She decided that he was right"? My gut feeling is the latter is correct in both cases. What do you think? Perhaps both the former and the latter are correct in both cases because the former is simply implying the word "that"; perhaps grammar rules allow either. Is this what you were trying to say in your second bullet above? If they're both correct, I'm just going to always insert the "that" as my gut tells me doing so is more acurate. Prhartcom (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, I thought I'd made it clear: a direct quotation is the direct object of "said" or "stated", in which case you cannot use "that". In the other examples you've given, both are correct, but the ones with "that" are "more correct"—the "that" can be dropped but is implied. So the sentences should be read as "He showed us the ring [that] he purchased" and "She decided [that] he was right". You can drop the word "that" in these cases but it remains ghost-like in the sentence. It's a peculiar feature of English. Do you speak Spanish or French? It's easier to understand if you do (those are languages in which you cannot drop the "that", so examples in those languages make it clear in English where a "that" has been dropped and where there was no "that" in the first place). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    (I have known for a long time that we can't mess with quotations and I was never asking anything about them.) Thanks! I understand now, you have answered my question about the "that", actually, you confirmed that I was restating your explanation correctly, that both cases are correct, but that using the word "that" is more correct. Thanks again; I have been copy editing other editor's work lately and this kept coming up (they kept leaving the "that" out) and I knew you would have this knowledge. Yes, I did learn both of those languages in school at one point but I don't get to practice them any more, and hadn't thought about using their (more straightforward) grammar to try to answer my original question; you're right, that also helps, thanks. (My wife speaks fairly fluent French, I'm not that good.) Prhartcom (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    When I was talking about direct quotations, I meant it from a grammatical perspective rather than a MoS one. Maybe I was misunderstanding you: I keep seeing "So-and-so said that 'I think it sucks'" kind of writing, which is grammatically wrong (and grates against my ears). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Where does the "only" and the "still" go in these sentences, and is there a rule? "The thing was only noticed when" or "The thing was noticed only when". The other one: "He still was not suspected of doing the thing" or "He was still not suspected of doing the thing"
    • In the first example, I feel like "only" should go before "when" [so the latter case is correct]—if you drop "when" [from the first case] you get "The thing was only noticed" [so it is wrong]. You're not trying to emphasize the mere-ness of the noticing, but that it happened "only when" [as in the second case, which is right]. This is a very subtle thing in most cases, and of course in coversation both sentences will be parsed the same way by most listeners.
    • In the second example, I don't think it matters. I can think of ways you could intend its placement to have a different nuance, but I think such shades of nuance almost certainly would not be picked up by even a careful reader. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    Please bear with me: I have inserted some additional explanation in brackets directly into to your statement on the first example in order to attempt to clarify what you are saying. Did I get it right? And I understand what you are saying in your statement on the second example. That helps; thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    The simple answer is "yes". I don't think it's so much a "right vs wrong" thing as much as a "more right" kind of thing. "The thing was only noticed when" and "The thing was noticed only when" will be parsed identically in conversation, so it really comes down to hairsplitting (as a writer you should be prepared to split such hairs, though). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    Thank-you for confirming that. This was one that I really struggled with and didn't really have a gut feeling about which case was "right", but I see now: simply try to isolate the phrase as you did, e.g. "only when", and it became clearer. Prhartcom (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Strange Stories question[edit]

Hi -- since you did the GA review for Strange Stories, would you mind commenting at User talk:TwomblyArt? A user has removed some cited information on the grounds that it's POV; I'd appreciate a third opinion. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw that. It definitely should not be removed from the body (it's quoted, attributed, and cited), but it's perhaps inappropriate for the image caption (WP:UNDUE—as it's the only image in the article, it draws undue attention to the craptacularity of the covers). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Providing sample[edit]

Hey Turkey, can you upload File:Metallica - Welcome Home (Sanitarium).ogg? Chose yourself which portion best fits the prose from the draft and the article.--Retrohead (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but give me a couple of days. I'll have to do it when everyone's out of the house—all my FLACs are on the family desktop, and nobody but me will tolerate thrash in the house. Face-wink.svg Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Debito Arudou[edit]

On the AfD you have put "Oppose", but aren't these supposed to be either "Keep" or "Delete"? I think your meaning is obvious, but well, just pointing it out... Imaginatorium (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Whoever closes it it supposed to read through the comments and decide on a consensus and not count !votes, so it shouldn't matter. Doubly, it won't matter as the nomination is obvious trolling and will be closed regardless because of it. I'll try to stick to proper protocol in the future. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoorNextDoor (talkcontribs) 16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that looks really credible from a guy who has 5RRed against two editors and refuses even to try to build a consensus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

January 2015[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Charlie Hebdo shooting. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bjelleklang - talk 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that his/her block be reviewed:

Curly Turkey (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I'm a hardworking editor in good standing who has a lot of productive editing to do. Thus, to get that work done, I hereby solemnly pledge not to so much as touch the Charlie Hebdo shooting page until MoorNextDoor's block is lifted. I will not disappoint you. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
  • Curly and I sometimes agree, and sometimes disagree. But I do think it's correct that Curly is hardworking. And note that somehow, despite 36,000 edits, sometimes in contentious areas, Curly had not been blocked before. A rate of one block (or fewer) per 36,000 edits in such areas suggests to me an editor who seeks to comply with the rules. I support a shortening of the block to either time served or 24 hours. Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Playboy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yummy Fur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)