User talk:TashTish: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:26, 27 December 2007

Welcome!

Hello, TashTish, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! John Vandenberg 07:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking an IP

I dont think that linking your edits as 68.194.79.110 to your new account is possible. What you might like to do is notify people of this by putting a link to those contributions on your User:TashTish page. John Vandenberg 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; synopsis; etc.

No need to thank me; indeed, thank you for reorganizing the "words used" section into a more meaningful order. We all clean up after each other and keep improving the articles, which is why Wikipedia works. I watch the Spelling Bee article closely because the show has a lot of enthusiastic fans, and they often try to add non-notable trivia to the article, and so it periodially gets long, listy and full of unreferenced statements. The article needs a short synopsis section. Even though it's not a very "plot" intensive show, it still needs a brief write-up of what happens in a chronological fashion. It seems you know the show very well, whereas I have only seen it once. Any interest in writing such a section? Also, if you like musicals, you should check out WP:MUSICALS. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Storm

Instead of just reinserting the items I had deleted for reasons given, it would have been preferable to reach consensus on the discussion page. At least the trivia about the blotch on her face has been corrected, but there is no point just re-inserting that the show has a "current four anchor format". It just doesn't. Please don't change again without discussion. Thanks.KD Tries Again 21:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

Hey, no problem. I wasn't aware of the vandalism issue - I now understand what happened. All the best.KD Tries Again 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

User:Ron liebman

He has a history going back to January. User:Ebyabe and I have been constantly reverting his nonsense. He uses the New York Public Library to do his "work", which has a whole range of IP's on that and other subnets, and he knows full well we can't stop him because it would block everyone in that system from using Wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYC meetup change of schedule

You've expressed an interest in the upcoming New York City Meetup for Saturday, November 3. I'd like to update you on an important change of schedule.

It's been agreed that we should have a 2-hour formal meeting period to start organizing meta:Wikimedia New York City, and this will be held at the Pacific Library (note this is different from the Brooklyn Central Library, which was discussed earlier) from 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM.

This will be in addition to the previously scheduled roving activities at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (this activity has also been cut short a bit) and at the Brooklyn Museum. For full details, see Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Ask any questions at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC. Thank you.--Pharos 21:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello badge

Hi. I made a Wiki Hello badge in case anyone's interested in using it for the Meetup. It's on the Meetup page. Nightscream 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

test –TashTish (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

test2 –68.194.79.110 (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Wonderful Life

I know your contributions were well-meaning but adding more to the plot summary is actually not beneficial. The details may add to the reader's understanding but the intention is to produce a concise synopsis. If you go back through the edit history of the article, you will be able to see voluminous submissions much like yours that made the article more a fanzine example which is not the original intention. Can you please look at condensing your submission. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Whoa, girl (or guy, whichever appellation is appropriate), no need to blame yourself on all the past transgressions in the plot summary of this article. I read and re-read it over and would be loathe to "cut" in your submissions. Rather, I did exactly what you did, took a longer look at some of the other verbiage and made revisions there. If anything, your submission was uniquely succinct and probably only added to the word total but certainly didn't look out of place in the long run. Pat yourself on the back for doing a good job (btw, I am a fellow author and editor by trade). Let's go back to do some other paring of the summary, I'll see you there. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And you are not the only one who is a pushover and overly romantic "sop." I still gush to everyone's annoyance about a decidedly "Capra-corney" movie. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, TashTish. A reply awaits you on my talk page. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TashTish (sorry don't know your real name just your "nom de plume"), thanks for your note: As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available) for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.

This is the reference guide you may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."

Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the "It's a Wonderful Life" article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing the "It's A Wonderful Life" citation/reference note. The "true style" is actually to use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. As to the exact citation in question, it should have been written in the traditional "Author. "Title". Place of publication: Publisher, year." convention but being adapted to an electronic/digital source of information. The entry should have appeared as ^[1] but as you accurately surmised, this is a convoluted citation style for Wikipedia use. There are other ways to write the electronic sourcing that work just as well.

If so desired, that is the actual correctly attributed source wherein all the "tracings" are provided and placed in the correct order. A suggestion made by Jeff Finlayson, one of the prolific editors in the Aviation Project Group on Wikipedia (of which I am a member, BTW, I didn't mention that I am an aviation historian and author with published work mainly in this field although I have done some other writing including screenplays for television broadcast...) was to "shortcut" the electronic citation partly due to reasons of need for brevity but also because many of the sources are not as well defined as our example. The final form that he proposed is one that maintains the core element of the source and provides a "hot link" to the URL where it is found on the Internet.

His guideline would look like this example: ^[2] which is what I would have used had I been the primary or first editor of the citation. I know it is not technically correct and it is one of the "jury-rigged" adaptations but it works out well. FWIW, you may have to read this note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations. My general "rule-of-thumb" is to adapt, revise and alter rather than revert or delete another editor's work and when I came across the "sort-of" MLA styled citation, I assumed that the original author preferred that style and wished to preserve it although as you said, a "cleaner" version does exist that works just as well.

Further to the verbiage above and another note on my talk page from a different editor: "As to the website citations, isn't it a bit over the top the include all those details? Is it really neccessary? I totally understand the need for a detailed system for book citations, and I've always included the required information in my references, but for websites I don't really see the use. Its there, you click it and you're on the page, a simple "name of site, title of page/section, and language of the site (if its not in English) should do, shouldn't it? I understand the ideal, but is it really required for websites? Manxruler (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)".

Yes, Manx, I agree that the simplest system is all that is required as per Jeff's suggestion: (http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Jakt/111J20.htm Avrosys.nu: J 20 - Reggiane Re 2000 Falco 1 (1941-1945)) FWIW, it works for me and I don't need to go into the full bibliographic record especially for a Wikipedia article.

I concur that the simpler form should predominate. Not to say, that if someone insists on a full bibliographical accounting, an APA/MLA format might be used, but generally speaking, go with the simple system. If it hasn't already been changed, please feel free to revise the notation in the article.Bzuk (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)."[reply]

TashTish, the same comments also apply to the "It's a Wonderful Life" article, wherein changing the citation to a simple "URL-based" style is perfectly acceptable and works just as well or better than a full MLA bibliographical notation.

I should have warned you that I am pedantic as well as romantic... FWIW Bzuk 13:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Re:John(ny) Williams

Thanks for the nice response. My thought is that because Johnny is such a close and simple nickname of John, it isn't really relevant. I guess it can stay. Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:agentx42

TashTish has twice now inserted opinion rather than fact in Sam Spence. He's added a "controversy" section where it does not merit such a listing. To wit:

- "Many have pointed out the similarity of his more successful themes to several contemporary film scores;"

Which "many" would that be, exactly? Two whole footnotes? Two does not count as "many". Try listing a few more references. Even three or four more would help, although whether this counts as "many" is subject to opinion.

- "some have accused them of "get[ting] too close to their obvious film inspiration."

By "some", he specifically means Lukas Kendall's review <a href="http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/articles/1998/30_Nov---CD_Review_NFL_Films_The_Power_and_the_Glory.asp"></a> , which was actually rather laudatory. The word "accused" implies a strongly worded, perhaps even aggressive disagreement or repudiation; Kendall's review merely mentions in passing the closeness of Spence's source material.

- "Such compositions have been described by some film score enthusiasts as fair and distinct "cool homage[s]" "

Once again, "some" in this case refers to two sole individuals - Kendall and Jeff Bond <a href="http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/articles/2005/25_Jul---CD_Review_NFL_Autumn_Thunder.asp"></a> - who do, in fact, use the word "homage" in their respective articles. However, TashTish uses the phrase "fair and distinct". This is purely opinion on his part, as he does not explain what the definition of "fair and distinct" is.

- "while others have labeled them as "barely disguised"[1] "knock-offs."[2] "

This is an egregious example of TashTish using a mistruth to express an opinion. Using the word "Others" is misleading and inaccurate; once again there is an implication there are further reviewers other than Kendall and Bond. A more serious offense is his cherry-picking of Kendall's "Barely disguised" and Bond's "knock-offs". TashTish is unfairly creating the idea that this is one whole quote. Bond's full quote is thus: "If you hate football and have never seen these documentaries, this CD might strike you as a pile of lousy knock-offs. However, if all of this is stirring your ancient memories of grainy highlight films, let alone running, tackling and catching a football, you'll love this celebration of music and image." TashTish has taken a paragraph out of context for his own biased means.

His listing of "Controversy" under the "Comments" section should be struck until he can find legitimate articles that support his claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentx42 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply in Discussion page of Sam Spence. –TashTish (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ Finkle, Jim. "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios." Broadcasting & Cable, March 9, 2005. "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios"
^ "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios" by Jim Finkle, Broadcasting & Cable, March 9, 2005.

[1] Finkle, Jim. "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios." Broadcasting & Cable, March 9, 2005. "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios"

[2] "Papazian to Head Sunset-Gower Studios" by Jim Finkle, Broadcasting & Cable, March 9, 2005.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 :test –[[User:TashTish|TashTish]] ([[User talk:TashTish#top|talk]]) 16:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
+::test2 –[[Special:Contributions/68.194.79.110|68.194.79.110]] ([[User talk:68.194.79.110|talk]]) 16:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 ==It's a Wonderful Life==