- 1 Palin
- 2 The ABX request
- 3 Rock and roll
- 4 Bank of United States
- 5 External Links
- 6 weasel words
- 7 that p.
- 8 AfD nomination of Restoring the Lost Constitution
- 9 Aircraft article names
- 10 Forum for Stable Currencies
- 11 Your thoughts on editing
- 12 Speedy deletion nomination of Miracast
- 13 Disambiguation link notification for December 19
- 14 Disambiguation link notification for February 14
The ABX request
Yo, I asked if you would ABX some samples not for the sake of the article but cuz I was curious to see the results. I've been meaning to look for an audiophile who vigorously challenges the popularity of the 128 kbps preference and see if he can easily tell the difference from a properly encoded 128 kbps file and the original.
Tell me if you accept my challenge and I'll send you 4 wavs, (the original, one low bitrate output, one high bitrate output and 128 kbps output.) Download the ABXer here. (No pressure on giving it accurate ratings, just ABX at least 10x)--22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Rock and roll
I reverted your changes from "was" to "is" on the basis that the genre still exists and is performed as originally devised. You wouldn't write that chamber music "was" a style of music that only existed in the past, or jazz "was" a style of music, would you? I think anyone reading the text would understand that it was "invented" at a point in time and later developed into (arguably) something else - but the original style still exists, and in my view it would be confusing and unnecessary to qualify it by referring to "classic" R&R. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't realize it was still commonly performed (except perhaps in Vegas). I didn't add the word "classic" and I don't like the word because classic rock usually refers to music from the early 60's to the late 70's. I added the word "early" because rock and roll is often used as a synonym for rock music. The term "early rock and roll" is sometimes used to differentiate it from later rock. --JHP (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think there are "rock and roll" bands (sorry, groups!) performing fairly widely in the UK, just as there are bands playing trad jazz, Gilbert & Sullivan, etc etc. I agree with the need to use a term like "early rock and roll" later in the article where it needs to be differentiated from "rock" in the modern sense, but not at the very beginning of the article where, in my view, it would just add confusion. The term "early rock and roll" is not in itself a widely used term (unlike, say, "rockabilly" or "R&B"). The development from the "early" forms to later forms seems to me to be covered in the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS Looking quickly at the refs you've given, these all support the argument in the second para of the article, that "rock and roll" can mean either (a) all the music that developed from the style invented in the 1950s, or (b) specifically the style as it existed in the 1950s (and maybe early 60s) before it became "rock". I don't see how that affects the first sentence, which says simply that it "evolved in" the 1940s/50s, and two lines later that it "developed into" modern "rock". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Bank of United States
A quick note to let you know that I moved the article to Bank of United States. We can, and should, think about the title further on the talk page but there is no sense in prolonging the move discussion without knowing what to move it to and New York Bank of United States was clearly the wrong one. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 15:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Capt'n. It is laid down here. To quote:
|“||When certain optional standard appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article... Order of optional appendices: 1. Works or Publications or Bibliography 2. See also 3. Notes and/or References 4. Further reading 5. External links (It is especially important that this section appears last)||”|
- I think part of the logic is that the "See also" section links within Wikipedia, so it ranks high in the list. "External links" leads readers away from Wikipedia, so it ranks lowest. "Further reading" is similar to "External links" in that it refers people away from Wikipedia, so it ranks right above "External links". I don't understand why "Bibliography" and "References" are not adjacent. --JHP (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ahhh! I just realized, "Works or Publications or Bibliography" refers to works written by the subject of an article. "Notes and/or References" refers to works written about the subject of an article. So, they are completely different! That's why they're not placed adjacent to each other. --JHP (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you tagged a couple of words at 2009 North Korean nuclear test with the weasel words template:
Many analysts[weasel words] have postulated that the test was conducted as a result of a succession crisis in the country. After Kim Jong-Il suffered a stroke in the summer of 2008, it is believed[weasel words] arrangements were made for his third son, Kim Jong-un, to take power upon his death. It is believed[weasel words] the North Koreans conducted the nuclear test to show that, even in a time of possible weakness, it did not intend to give up its nuclear weapons program.
Both sentences are sourced by the same reference. Allow me to prove the non-weaselness of each term tagged by quoting the Time Magazine article.
Many analysts and It is believed...
And Kim Jong Un is now, many analysts believe, officially in line to succeed Kim Jong Il as the leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea — which helps explain Pyongyang's recent explosively belligerent behavior.
It is believed (#2)
The North Koreans have chosen what could have been a period of weakness — with an ailing leader trying to arrange the eventual transfer of power to an untested son — to state that it does not intend to give up its nuclear weapons program.
Furthermore, the policy you linked to (Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words) says in the summary "This page in a nutshell: Avoid using phrases such as "some people say", or any variations of the sort, without providing sources." (emphasis added) Since I have provided a source, the templates are not valid, and I have removed them. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but a single reference at the end of the paragraph is not sufficient. The reference should appear at the end of each sentence that makes a questionable claim. I have fixed this. Also, the question of who is making the claim is answered by "Time magazine." Therefore, I have made that abundantly clear in the article. If you want to cite the actual analysts cited by Time, that would be good too. Finally, the "many analysts" claim in the Wikipedia article does not match the "many analysts" claim in the Time article. According to Time, "many analysts" believe that Kim Jong Un is officially in line to succeed his father. Somehow in Wikipedia, this incorrectly got converted to "many analysts" claiming that the tests were conducted due to a succession crisis. Regarding the latter claim, Time cites an unspecified number of "diplomats and intelligence sources". --JHP (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- The paragraph is much improved. Thank you. While reusing a reference multiple times within a paragraph may seem redundant, it makes it easier to verify a claim. Over time, new editors will modify a paragraph and frequently new claims will work their way into the paragraph. To the casual reader, those new claims will appear to have a footnote backing them up. Also, the more claims contained within a paragraph, the more difficult it will be to make sure that each and every one of them is backed up by the source. As a general rule, the broader the scope of text that a reference is supposed to substantiate, the harder it will be to verify.
- I hope you are not offended, but I cannot help but refer you to what The American Heritage Dictionary says about the word "irregardless", which is an improper way of saying "regardless":
:::Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. ... It has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. ... It has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
- I agree with your point that over time multiple use of the reference would not be redundant, but I figured since I was watching it I'd be able to catch that if it happened. Anyway, it doesn't really matter now. And yea, I knew something felt a little wrong when I typed in 'irregardless'. Thanks for the correction. Bsimmons666 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Restoring the Lost Constitution
An article that you have been involved in editing, Restoring the Lost Constitution, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restoring the Lost Constitution. Thank you Rillian (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Aircraft article names
These articles are titled according to WP:AIR/NC naming conventions. Rather than adding the same post to thousands of aircraft article talk pages, it would probably be easier on all involved if you post to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) instead. - BilCat (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Forum for Stable Currencies
Apparently you are the person who put a 'notability tag' on the page about the Forum for Stable Currencies. Are the new references sufficient to remove it?
Thanks for checking and letting me know on your page.
- No. You only added one new reference, and it's something you wrote yourself. That constitutes original research, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. You are trying to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, which is highly unethical! --JHP (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Your thoughts on editing
Speedy deletion nomination of Miracast
A tag has been placed on Miracast requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. PKT(alk) 13:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is no "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" button! There is no talk page! The page has already been deleted (within 24 hours of creation) so nobody had an opportunity to defend it. --JHP (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited OfficeMax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Staples (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deep learning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strong AI (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.