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 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

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)