User talk:KaptKos: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:07, 26 October 2006

Welcome!

Hello, KaptKos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Djegan 19:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No time for an aggressive attack

I don't really agree/disagree with the sudden changes to the Rush article. But that aggressive POV take over was out of place. If you wish to rv the "Anon with an agenda" until he takes his debabte to the talk page for a proper discussion and resolution....I will support it. If he continues with his poor attitude about his opinion he will just have to be reported....yet again. Anger22 17:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's backed off for now. Thanks for the offer of support, though.KaptKos 10:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rottweiler

Thanks for letting me know! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:SparksHelloYoungLovers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SparksHelloYoungLovers.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SparksBuckinghamPalace.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SparksBuckinghamPalace.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris de Burgh

Hi! I kicked this part out of the article because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with de Burgh's biography. I am not a particularly big fan of his. I just don't want to read such nonsense ANYWHERE on WP!!! People who get their own lemma should all be treated with respect and we should all remain strictly NEUTRAL and ENCYCLOPEDIC when we write about 'em. This part of the article is a lot of things but it is definitely not neutral let alone encyclopedic. --Fromgermany 19:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ref formatting

Hi. I initial went to edit it because it had a missing space, but as I was editing it I amended it to use the standard web citation template, {{cite web}} I also tried to clarify that Sparkography was a part of the website rather than its name. —Wh o uk (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. One good thing about using the template is that if Wikipedia changes its display style for references in future, all the article refs can automatically change with it without having to edit them all. —Wh o uk (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Another note about using {{cite web}}. If you look at Template talk:Cite web, you'll see there are various other fields available. For example, the date of the material should go in the "year=" field, and the author can go in the "author=" field. Additionally, and websites which are formal mainstream news sites can use Template:Cite news, and online versions of printed journal articles can use Template:Cite journal. Again, the relevant Talk pages give details of template usage. —Wh o uk (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sparks

Just a note to say thanks for your work on Sparks - it's a great step towards the Maels getting the kind of quality article they deserve. I'd looked at that article a few times before wondering where the hell to start on making it better and kind of given up in despair, so it's great that someone's been brave enough to do so. --Mike 06:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might interest you

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush trivia I voted to keep and merge with the pop culture article. It'd be a shame to see it go. There's a ton of intersting content that could go in there. Anger22 18:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rush sb

I realize this is a somewhat tardy response to the message you left on my discussion page. I tend to shoot (my mouth off) first and ask questions later. I bear you no personal grudge over the whole Rush article brouhaha. And you were correct, I did think that Rush sb idea was dead. I admire your adherence to your principles. You wrote: "I would still have reverted but it probable wouldn't have been as frustrating for you." I can understand that and would probably do the same myself. It seems we're probably never going to agree except on one thing: love for Rush's music and admiration for "the Boys."

I realize to people who have been invovled a lot longer than I have that I could appear to be a newcomer trying to simply stir things up. On the other hand, it appears to me that a group of Rush fans have decided that they are the arbirters of what's going to be in the article and what isn't.

I also realize my "sledgehammer" approach is hardly going to "win friends and influence peple."

Hopefully some middle ground can be achieved where new approaches can be accepted and new people invited to the party, so to speak.

PainMan 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rush response

Thanks for the response re: Rush.

I realize now that posting reverts to the article will merely cause someone else to revert them and then I would have to revert the reverts and on and on and on.

Since I seriously doubt anyone in the claque is going to give my changes a fair hearing (except for yourself and even you admit they wouldn't be acceptable to you and admire you for being upfront on that score) let alone a chance for them to be excepted, I don't really see any point in further contributions to the Rush article or sand box. Unlike Bobby Lee, I see the stone wall and the massed enemy rifles and artillery and I have no taste for Pickett's fate...

I had an entirely different concept of wikipedia when I first discovered it; naivete of which I have been quickly disabused. I will continue to contribute to various articles (yesterday I added some further information to the article on Peter Seller's widow, for example) but, to reiterate, it's pointless to try get my changes accepted on those pages where claques of individuals have decided that their version and only their version is orthodoxy and are determined to revert anything they consider heretical.

You are a straight forward and honest person and I appreciate that (the above remarks are not aimed at you...)

Regards,

PainMan 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2112

Hello. Let's try to work together on the article. 2112 is obviously a concept album. I mean, the story is explained in the article. It is a fairly detailed story, too. Perhaps we can say something like "The first half of the album is a concept album, while the second half has nothing to do with the story of 2112." What do you think? Can we work to some kind of compromise? dposse 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the album was released, was it a two disc/record set? If it was released today, would it be a two disc set? If so, we can say that the first half of the album 2112 is a concept album, while the other half is not. dposse 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 19, 2006

Rush will be on the main page. We all better be keen to monitor the article that day. I expect my VandalProof rv count will spike pretty high. Cheers and take care! Anger22 12:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need some physiotherapy on your index finger from clicking your mouse too much! I am having server problems, my internet has turtled up and my page is loading ssssllllllow. Everytime I go to rv the page you've beaten me too it. There should be a barnstar for self-inflicted carpal tunnel. :) Cheers! Anger22 14:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Peart

Hey Kap. I'm not going to edit war with the latest nonsense editor on the Peart article. Perhaps someone else...you! :) ...can take a stab at it. Cheers! Anger22 18:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rush is actually Russian doncha know!

Multiple IP's....same foolishness. Good catch! I don't the the vandal's edit has ever stuck longer than 5 minutes. It's nice that a good page like that gets monitored by so many people. Cheers! Anger22 11:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Around

Thanks for notifying me. Yeah, I've done what you recommended, and yes, that was one of the reasons I created it, due to the lack of pages for Sparks singles. And I'm pretty sure it was Dick Around/Waterproof... But cheers anyway! ~ WastBarktender100, 11:33, 25 October 2006 (GMT)

Dawkins

Every time I introduce references to Betrand Russell, Haekel, Dennis Noble or Bob May on the Dawkins page one of the "keepers of the flame" does a revert. If you can offer a reasoned argument or improvement then please do so, but don't just mindlessly revert. It is against Wikipedia policy, and plain silly!

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 Thanks for notifying me. Yeah, I've done what you recommended, and yes, that was one of the reasons I created it, due to the lack of pages for [[Sparks (band)|Sparks]] singles. And I'm pretty sure it was [[Dick Around]]/Waterproof... But cheers anyway! ~ [[User:WastBarktender100|WastBarktender100]], 11:33, 25 October 2006 (GMT)
+== Dawkins ==
+Every time I introduce references to Betrand Russell, Haekel, Dennis Noble or Bob May on the Dawkins page one of the "keepers of the flame" does a revert.  If you can offer a reasoned argument or improvement then please do so, but don't just mindlessly revert. It is against Wikipedia policy, and plain silly!