User talk:evanh2008

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


Reply to message.

Hi. I just read your message regarding my edit to the genre section of a page. I'll take the advice given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UmbrellaCorp128 (talkcontribs) 23:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Evan (talk|contribs) 23:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper peer review

Hi, Evan. I've put Sgt. Pepper up at peer review and I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions you have for improving the article in preparation for FAC. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Will do! Go ahead and ping me again if you haven't heard back by Monday. Evan (talk|contribs) 16:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Book links

Just want you to now that the book - Judaism's Story of Creation: Scripture, Halakhah, Aggadah (Brill Reference Library of Judaism)- actually calls it a creation-myth of Genesis at http://books.google.com/books?id=agcdtGmQfwIC&pg=PA38 not a good source for your point..but it is a good publisher. Best if I tell you here before others go of on a rant about it - is a book used before to argue creation-myth. --Moxy (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks! I should have looked closer. We can put it in both lists, actually. Evan (talk|contribs) 18:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Yup is a good example of the problem - they call it creation-myth of Genesis but use the term narrative when talking about its contents. --Moxy (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

musicians
Thank you for creating in collaboration quality articles on musicians and bands, such as George Harrison and his religious background, for your projects such as Led Zeppelin, for fighting vandalism, for updating useless witticism, and for amusing edit summaries, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 475th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for lending your talent to the Sgt. Pepper peer review and FAC. Because of some wonderful teamwork during the last month, the article is among the best on Wikipedia today. I couldn't have done it alone, and I hope that someday I can return the kindness and generosity that I've enjoyed during this process. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A-class Rock Music reviews

Hi. I'm seeing if there's an interest in doing A-class reviews for rock related articles to help bridge the gap between Good and Featured status. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music#A class reviews and I'd be grateful if you had any comments. Thankyou. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter Shatner

Please stop erasing factual data. I am starting to detect a bias. Please read below.

(Wall Street Journal Online by JAMES TARANTO, Aug. 28, 2012 1:59 p.m. ET - He turned out to be Peter Shatner--no relation to Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, but the son of the man who played another Kirk in the original "StarTrek."[1] [2]

From Wikipedia:

What counts as a reliable source Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:

the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book) the creator of the work (for example, the writer) the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".[6] Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

university-level textbooks books published by respected publishing houses magazines journals mainstream newspapers.

Petershatner (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.

Have you added the citations to the article? You definitely didn't in the edits I reverted. If you want to add something to a BLP, you need to source the information in the article, not just when someone questions it. Evan (talk|contribs) 14:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome

I should add that there were a lot - I mean a lot - or double redirects for this article. I started to clean them up, but would appreciate some help. It seems that someone went to a lot of effort to create a trail of breadcrumbs to the article. Regards, Ground Zero | t 18:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I'll take a look. Evan (talk|contribs) 18:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to thank you for acknowledging my mention of the Isabel Rivers work. I assume you have read it? This is one of the few books I have bought en masse and given away to people with any interest at all in the subject.

My boyfriend, who is a dyslexic musician, found this book most helpful when we studied it together. He loves Shakespeare, but it is almost a third language for him. There's no greater reward than seeing someone light up when they finally 'get' something from Shakespeare.

In any case, I truly appreciated your thanks for this.  :)

μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read it, actually, but after clicking your link I was quite taken with the excerpts I found. I've been dismantling both Milton and Shakespeare in search of various religious themes of late, so it's definitely up my alley (and, with my free time allotment being what it is, "short" is also a selling point). The used bookseller I placed the order from thanks you as well! Evan (talk|contribs) 04:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful to hear. The book should cost you a pound at most used or two bucks. I'd suggest reading Richard II, Richard III after reading the book. Polanski's film of MacBeth also benefits, as does Olivier's King Lear. Especially Richard II which is undervalued but which has the
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...
soliloquy in it. Much of what is said there and before and after cannot otherwise be understood. For instance, John of Gaunt is dying and knows he is dying and hence describes himself as a prophet new inspired. This is dealt with in the Stoicism chapter. The Stoics identified the breath with the soul, and hence held the words of dying men like Gaunt as closer to the "inspiration" of heaven. An Elizabethan schoolboy would know this, but not we latter-day readers. Enjoy and pass along. 05:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of 2nd nomination of Victoria Pynchon for deletion

You participated in an AfD discussion approximately two years ago, so I am notifying you of a 2nd nomination and discussion taking place as to whether the article Victoria Pynchon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. It is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon (2nd nomination).-- AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444327204577617520166228372)
  2. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Taranto