User talk:Rep07

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

Hello Rep07,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! This was for Pran Cola. Thanks again for your positive contributions! Avicennasis @ 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

copy vio[edit]

please give me a few hours to re-write the offending sections, thank you. riffic (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Gold nugget, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Placer (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) 04:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Much-needed edits: "fascinating"[edit]

Please stop your bizarre campaign to remove the word "fascinating" from Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with it, particularly if it is supported by a source. You have completely misunderstood WP:NPOV. Furthermore, this appears to be your only contribution to wikipedia for months. This disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Re my "fascinating" patrol: please see WP:PEACOCK, which lists several other examples of inappropriate personal-opinion adjectives that violate NPOV policy. "Extraordinary", "brilliant", etc. all equally unacceptable unless they are in an explicit quotation from a reliable published source. Note that in my editing I always check for that situation on each and every edit--OK if it's inside a quote. Again, editors are not allowed to convey our own personal "fascination" with anything here, in any form, any more than we would be entitled to qualify with "wearisome" or "uninspired" or "utterly boring". When I'm done with "fascinating" I'll be going after "strikingly beautiful", "magnificent", and other puffery. :) Rep07 (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
1. WP:PEACOCK is a guideline not a policy. 2. Even that begins with "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia" 3.If supported by sources, there is nothing wrong with it 4.Spending weeks on doing nothing but that is not of use to Wikipedia, and just irritates others. DeCausa (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


OK, I do get trying to make this a more objective set of references and entries but when editing something like "City of Glass" please try to look up what is the actual CD or material out there. City of Glass (Stan Kenton/Bob Graetinger) is one of the turning points in American progressive music after WWII (Third Stream jazz). This is well known, I would not have been able to spend so much time on this article otherwise. No, there is NO 'puffery', the playing of this music is brilliant in many ways. I try to contribute and am a known critic for prominent articles and reference books in music and specfically jazz. The reference I made to the woodwind playing (and I emphsize REFERENCE, not in the text) does ring true. I will not go any further but it would be nice to be consulted on certain aspects of what is edited at times. Jcooper1 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply Jcooper: While I do agree that this is unnecessary, having entire paragraphs without citations that praise the music directly and make unbacked assertions violates NPOV policy. -Ehburrus (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes it's a common thing on WP for very dedicated editors who have a lot of specialized knowledge, to become entitled and to feel "ownership" of the material and the article, and some of them cross the line to where they feel an unspoken "special exemption" surely allows them (as major contributors and experts in the subject) to express their personal admiration/awe etc. with... gushy unreferenced personal POV. And their peevish indignation flares when some other editor DARES to tone down their elegy. And yes, it IS necessary for "counter-POV" editors to patrol the WP, just as antibodies patrol our bloodstreams. If they want to put praise in the article, all they have to do is add a footnote.Rep07 (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)