User talk:Kevintampa5

Welcome

Welcome to Kevintampa5's talk page! To leave a message, click EDIT, add a new section, and type away. Please sign your entry with 4 tilde's ~~~~.

Visitors Talk Back

Visitors welcome.

For NEW USERS

For Experienced users

Visitor Message Section

Visitors to my talk page, please leave your messages in this section unless you are using the Talkback template (see Visitors Talk Back section. If your message partains directly to a page I have created, edited, or reverted please create a new section titled with the page name of the topic you are discussing. If that section already exist, please add your message to that section.

Blender

Red Dwarf
Hi Kevin,

This might be a more appropriate link: http://www.blendernation.com/2012/10/11/blender-used-for-red-dwarf/ Let me know on my talk page if possible Pluke (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ink Master

• Hello this is Joey Hamilton I was wanting to ask you some questions about your editing. What does the High marks mean? If the artist is said to have a good tattoo in the judges remarks does that not count? Also in the Japanese why was I not given a high mark? In person they said I had the best tattoo but they were not rewarding a winner. I don't know why Tat2baby has a high mark. She wasn't even in the top on the tattoo challenge. On many cases they said I had a great tattoo on the final judges discussion. Would that not count as a high mark? Just checking. Thank you. If you have any questions about the show you can ***Remainder of sentence removed*** Joey Hamilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.82.249 (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• In response: The format is explained in the legend section of the table. You have to receive a high mark from the judges in the recall. You did not, as the judges would have declared a high mark the winner of the challenge. You had the best of the group and I feel you should have won, but this is not about opinion, its about historical record keeping. Thank you for asking as I do appreciate it. If you have additional questions, check the Talk page as well. I am trying to push a larger use of that for these kinds of discussions. Also register for Wikipedia, its free. You are one of my favorites this season. I am disappointed Craig was sent home so early, he was better than Josh in my opinion.Kevintampa5 (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I did receive a high mark from the judges they just didn't say it on the playback of the episode.. they said it in person to us. They said I had the best tattoo. Also Tat2baby didn't receive a high mark on the phoenix tattoo, and she was in the low on the pin up tattoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.82.249 (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• What was said off camera has not historical place, as it reflects what was shown, not what was said. Craig won in one challenge, but it was never stated of air, only on the website. I will check and see if a winner is marked for asian tattoo, but it wasnt earlier this week. What I will do is watch the episode again and if something was stated on air, I will append the episode details with this information, but the progress chart follows an outline of judge recall to be placed in the WIN, HIGH, LOW, or OUT category. If you were not recalled and given a high mark then, it doesnt count. In the episode you are referring to, no one was rated high in the recall, as a high mark would have been a winner of thew challenge, and I feel you would have been one of the considerations for winner, if not the direct winner. I can only list the aired information in an encyclopedia.

Katherine and her asian tattoo, she did receive a low and the human canvas voted her worst, and this was depicted so. Currently, I am about to request that the season 3 wikipedia entry be locked from non-registered user edits, as there are people vandalizing the page. I have been working hard to stay on top of it and keep the information accurate.

I also reorganized the progress table to make it appear clean. If you have something to say about how the rating structure is working, you can add that to the talk page in the top section. I have been trying to get a greater use out of it in the form of suggestions and thoughts. Maybe we can add a new section for contestant comments and maybe a behind the scenes this season or something. What would you say to that?

Again, good luck, you are one hell of an artist. You, Katherine, and Craig are my favorites. Joey I like too; I really like all of you. Without all of you, there would be no competition. Kevintampa5 (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Joey, have you any proof of the conversations off camera? If so and it can be provided publicly, I would be more than happy to create a section regarding the topic. It would be a 'behind the scens' style section. I am also watching the Phoenix episode and will update the chart if it is question.

• Where was the Season 3 Live finale filmed?64.135.210.154 (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC) David C Chicago

• If I recall correctly, it was filmed in New York, as are most of the episodes (some travel is stated throughout the series) and the final tattoos are usually applied in the artists chosen locations.Kevintampa5 (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment received and respected

I got your message about my edits on the "Ink Masters" page. I'll be sure to leave comments on my edits from here on - I can see how comments will give a quick glimpse into page hacking. Cheers! ~A — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talory (talk • contribs) 02:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ink Master (season 3), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EDT (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) 13:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved Kevintampa5 (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ink Master (season 4), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farmington, Wisconsin (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) 09:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ink Master Season 4

Callanecc, if you are reading this please post your response here or on your talk page, I am watching it.Kevintampa5 (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Would you be able to let me know what is the status of the request? Thanks!

Kevintampa5 (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing as of yet, just message the admin who commented to ask about it. Most of the time they will look at it. Thanks, TheMesquito (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm Titusfox. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ink Master (season 4) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! TitusFox^'Tribs 09:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• The edits you reverted led to an outdated page, no intention to do so on your part, you are just protecting Wiki. The reversion I performed was notated. I reverted because a number of edits provided false and inaccurate information, too many to list in the limited comment spacing. My change was not Blanking by any means, but a reversion to an accurate version. I must do it again to correct the inaccuracies placed as a result of other editors who do not know what really happened. MY source for the information is the primary provider of the show and is accurate to that. To go through and see what is left out or wrong would take a lot of time. Reverting to my latest version will fix it. Even the color changes in the chart was screwed up because the person that changed it did not understand the reasons differentiation was needed and now the color codes do not match the notations given for the specified colors. Yes it may have made a look different, but it needs to be similar to the other 3 seasons coloring for ease of understanding. Please do not revert my edit to a previous version. It is an accurate benchmark that can be reverted to.Kevintampa5 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Acalycine, did you restrict my access to require review instead of auto-accepting on protected pages when you reverted my message box? The box was not intended for Wiki, but a project wiki site not affiliated with Wiki but that uses Wiki styling. Somehow I crossed my edits and a few things were placed on the wrong pages. It was accidental. Specifically referring to Ink Master season 4. Kevintampa5 (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that question but I've accepted your pending changes on that page. No problem about the accident, they happen. Thanks. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 03:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I should be auto-accepted with my edits. I have in the past. for some reason today it required my edit to be reviewed. Any ideas? Kevintampa5 (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

How were you auto-accepted? Through a reviewer nomination? Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 04:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

All Auto-confirmed users are auto-accepted on a semi-protected site. No review is needed unless the edit is performed by a new or unregistered user. Kevintampa5 (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

So you were talking about auto-confirmed users. I haven't limited your access to anything, I'm afraid. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 06:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it is auto-accepting the revisions now. It has done that before but it only last for a short while, couple hours maybe. Thanks for responding. Kevintampa5 (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Carrie Archdale

Hello Carriearchdale. I like that you are trying to clean up the Ink Master page, but you have made it much harder to read and follow. I know you weren't intentionally trying to make it harder to understand and I do like some of your changes and rewording/formatting. It has helped and I can work around it, but as the primary contributor to the subject, I know what is important and what should be kept separate or in higher stature than other aspects of the show. I do not wish to be rude, but now I have to go and make this understandable and clear up some of the confusion. I am not attempting to be demeaning to you in the least, I just felt I should let you know some of the changes you have made, only a few, I will be changing. If you do not like this, we can discuss it on the article's talk page. Had you posted your intentions to make these changes on the talk page prior to doing so, I could have helped you make the changes or at least provided input to why it is the way it is. Kevintampa5 (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC) This was going to be a talkback but I saw a section already in progress regarding the topic.Kevintampa5 (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I would enjoy collaborating with you on the Ink Master 4 article. Have a great evening!

ciao!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	Congratulations!!! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I found a mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrawesome63 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Man vs Human

Just seen your reason for reverting my edit. That's just your opinion. However, check this reference:

http://www.webcitation.org/68pdJn9M5

It's given as ref no 34 and it clearly states "man-made", whereas the article reports it as human-made. We must report references accurately and spare them from political correctness. 141.6.11.15 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• So long as there is a source, protected pages are usually approved. Without sources it is looked at with more scrutiny. Kevintampa5 (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're addressing the point I'm making. The reference says "man-made" but the article says "human-made". Also, look at reference no. 5. It is used to assert the craft as being the farthest "human-made" object from Earth. In fact the reference does nothing of the sort. It makes no mention of farthest anything. There is a problem with this article and its references and some of that is caused by editors wishing to be politically correct. 141.6.11.17 (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Changed my original response. So long as there is a source, protected pages are usually approved. Without sources it is looked at with more scrutiny. Since it is just a single word, both of which mean relatively the same thing, it doesn't really matter which one is used. Since your reference doesn't add any new information and it wasn't applied to the article, there was no valid reason to approve the edit. It is not an opinion, its a lack of reason. Your source didn't add a definition to man vs human so it really doesn't do anything but say it can be used in this fashion as well.
  • Just to clairify, I didn't add the source, it was already there. And I notice that, as well as the wording within the source, the title of the source has also been modified from "man" to "human". That is not good at all. 141.6.11.17 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to change it to man instead of human, discuss it on the talk page.Kevintampa5 (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes I looked at that. The last user who tried was told to Go FYS ! What a wonderful place is Wikipedia. 141.6.11.17 (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• On the talk page? I will look into that. That isnt supposed to be how it works on Wikipedia. Kevintampa5 (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed and put a statement on the talk page. I will continue to monitor it and involve moderators with block authority should it continue to be vile. Please post your thoughts on there regarding the topic. Kevintampa5 (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Linda Ronstadt

You got that PERFECTLY wrong. Congrats! :P The "speculating" was just about her bad health (which I cannot be sure of), but there was no speculating that she participated on that Nicolette Larson tribute!! Since I have that album. Go figure. :p This usually happens if people are doing too many things at the same time and hence just skim over annotations instead of reading them fully. -andy 2.243.116.105 (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Cite your edits. I misread the context of your change, but it still needs citation. Just saying you own the CD so you should know is not verifiable enough. Find a source online. Kevintampa5 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Romani people

Hi. Can you please explain why you reverted my 'citation needed' tag? The statement is highly questionable. RashersTierney (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought I added that back. Sorry, I meant to only undo the ip edit, not yours. I restored the cn.Kevintampa5 (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You also added <!--Term is not always derogatory, reason for often.--> . What does that mean? And what was wrong with the IP's edit? You didn't say at the edit summary.RashersTierney (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The ip edit removed the word OFTEN. This resulted in the impression that it is always taken offensively, which is not the case and would be an opinion. That is why it was rejected. The comment is just a comment so people editing will see why OFTEN is used. Kevintampa5 (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't WP:EDITORIALIZE. Unless the sources make this claim the IP is correct to remove it. RashersTierney (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Im not editorializing nor was my decision against the policy of editorializing. I am reviewing changes to a protected article to prevent changes such as vandalism, libel, defamation, and changes that disrupt the context of parts of the article. Removing the word OFTEN from that sentence changed the context and view of the word gypsy. The word gypsy is not ALWAYS derogatory or offensive even to the Romani people. Removing the word OFTEN changed the meaning to reflect that it is ALWAYS taken in a demeaning way, and this is just not a fact but an opinion, which is not desired without According to Whom citations, or not desired at all since it would convey a partial view; see WP:YESPOV. In all reality, there are a number of policies we reviewers have to keep in mind when reviewing. This sometimes requires us to do a little more than just accepting or rejecting. If I feel it is a change that will affect the context of how a sentence or word in the sentence is used then I will have to look into the material so as to make the correct choice in accepting or rejecting a change to the protected article. Upon reading the paragraph of change and checking the references surrounding, it is determined to be generally accepted as derogatory, but not always. That is the reason for my rejecting of the change as it becomes partial if not. I did not mean to reject your change, as it is in need of additional citation for fact of statement. I restored the citation needed after you alerted me to it. This issue has been resolved. :) Thanks for understanding. Kevintampa5 (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that any of the references make that point. Note that it is the use of the term 'gypsy', with small 'g' that is in question - Garner - "Historically, gypsy has a pejorative connotation when applied to people." - Partridge - "a gypsy, gypsy UK 1916, Derogatory, casually racist" - Report in Roma Educational Needs in Ireland - " Gypsy is a pejorative term originating from a popular misconception". See, no use whatever of your qualifier 'often'. RashersTierney (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)