User talk:Gzkn

This is Gzkn's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:Gzkn/December 2006. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Archives: 11/06 12/06

This user makes mistakes on RC patrol. (Report one)

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition	Review now
Helium	Review now
Martin Keamy	Review now
Pauline Fowler	Review now
Battle of Red Cliffs	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now

Current FACs
Want me to look at an FAC?
Add it to this list

Noahide Laws

I would love to have the Noahide Laws article featured some time. You hang around area allot. What your take on it? I know it needs allot of improvements, can you give some impartial advice? frummer 20:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thx

Thanks for correcting a link on my How to find good copy-editors page. I think the page has problems (not good examples, for instance), and will leave it for a while. Tony 13:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx

I'll try n see to it! frummer 04:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B movie colloquy

Howdy. I had no intention of responding hostilely to your original comment. I've looked over what I wrote, however, and I can easily see how it came over that way. I apologize for my clumsiness. Here's what I've written in response to your subsequent comment:

Sorry, didn't catch this comment until just now. There was no hostility--I just wanted to be clear whether there had been a revision in the citation requirements I was unaware of. As you suggest, large chunks of text without citation can be a concern, but--as I demonstrated to Jayzel--whether they call for citation or not ultimately has nothing to do with the length but rather with the nature of the content. In the example you give, for instance, (a) the description of Stranger on the Third Floor as the first classic film noir is an opinion widely held in the field, common knowledge to all professionals involved in film noir criticism and American film history in general (as common knowledge as, say, "The Jazz Singer was the first feature-length film with live-recorded dialogue"--does that necessitate a citation?), and (b) it has no strong intellectual status, as both (i) the definition of film noir and (ii) the line between "classic" noir and "pre-classic" or "proto-" noir are largely subjective. In both ways, therefore, the statement does not warrant a citation--not only is it material that is easily verifiable by any interested layman via simple reference to a wide range of published sources, it should not be given the imprimatur of a citation. It's an accurate and relevant observation about a generally held opinion in the field, no more or less. I've changed the wording of the sentence to make that a bit clearer. It was "movies" because...um...I can't type.—DCGeist 09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up I've expanded the paragraph in question to cover more of the general relationship between the realms of film noir and the B movie. In the citation at the end of the graf, I've made sure to include an article that deals with Stranger on the Third Floor as well as the general issue of latter-day popularity.—DCGeist 12:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Best, Dan—DCGeist 22:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intrusive thoughts

I like the Intrusive thoughts article — don't ask me why. Rintrah 07:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm ... I didn't know of its existence - now I do. It's quite a mess, even inaccurate. I'll dig out some books specifically on the topic and try to clean it up for accuracy, and then you ce marvels will have to clean up my prose :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a closer look at it, and I don't think there is a single correct statement in the entire article - it will take more time than I thought. I still plan to work on it over the next few days, as I find time. I'll take it out of use for a complete rewrite, and then will appreciate a new ce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got far enough that I felt I could remove the expand tag. I still have to find updated information on cognitive behavioral therapy (sources I have are outdated), and write descriptions of 3 types: inappropriate aggressive thoughts, inappropriate sexual thoughts, and blasphemous religious thoughts. But the basics are mostly there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, amazing job Sandy! Gzkn 08:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done - sick of that topic - you all can do anything you want now in terms of copyediting - thanks for getting me into that :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copediting

Hello Gzkn: after talking to Tutmosis, I was wondering if you could copyedit the Enter the Wu-Tang article. I want it to be a featured article and all of the help I can get is appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noahdabomb3 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Welcoming

I see you do a fair bit of welcoming. Please can I ask you to use my {{welcome123}} template so as to help with my research into new user trends. The template puts the new user into Category:WelcomeBotResearch where we analyse their progress, activity vandalism etc. Cheers. frummer 22:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil people

Oh ok. I thought the version with "|" was preferred. Thanks for telling me they are the same. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Back...

What should I do now, that now I am back? Asher Heimermann 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello!

I re-did the Scout Taylor-Compton article. I am sorry if her mother objects, but the event did happen. I put a link to IMDB to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.14.93 (talk • contribs) Gzkn 06:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In da Streetsz Musik

Thanks for your message. I suppose that I could say that, just as "db:bio" doesn't mean just "bio", so "it's not a bio" doesn't mean just "it's not a bio". The point is that it's a record label, and looking at other articles on record labels, none of them asserts the significance of the subject (any more than do articles on U.S. villages, geographical features, etc.). The fact that it exists, and that it really does release recordings is surely sufficient grounds for its being here.

I suppose that what we really need is a guideline linking the length of an article to its significance. It would be silly to have a long article on this label and a short one on EMI. Still, I can't see why this article shouldn't exist. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I interrupt, but I dont think there should be anything definite linking importance to size. First any attempt will hurt the lack of consensus surrounding the importance of a subject. Second, the encyclopedic importance of a subject is simpy how much there is to say about it. While there are endless things to say about EMI, that would probably justify several articles, there probably isn't that much to say about most small labels. This is what should naturally limit thesize of these articles: a long one is sure to be full of non-notable trivia, to be deleted on sight. However, this should not prevent small articles on small subjects from existing, if only to assert that there is nothing more to say about it.--SidiLemine 13:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this article Jason Mizell

I can't believe some of the stuff on this article's page. I saw it as the result of your edit of another page. Ronbo76 11:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the expert either but. . .

I was reading another article that had some spelling errors and questionable claims in it. User talk:Mel Etitis cleared my tags like he did with yours on this article Black Child. Doesn't seem right for someone to clear tags without appropriate action. Ronbo76 11:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You added {{wikify}}; what you seem to have meant was that there were spelling errors and dubious claims. First, one or two minor errors (even if they exist, and I couldn't see them here) don't justify a template (just make the corrections), and certainly not "wikify"; secondly, the same applies to questions of fact, though here the point is also that you don't add a string of {{fact}} templates to every item in a list; if you have reason to doubt what's there, or think that it's insufficently sourced, then add the {{unreferenced}} template to the end of the article. I did explain most of this to you on your Talk page, but you seem unwilling to accept it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian artist-run initiatives

Hello! The {{unreferenced}} template goes to the end of an article, preferably in a "references" section; see Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Requesting sources. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Floating box

Hello, Gzkn. Due to my set-up, I switch between three computers during most days of editing. The one I happen to be using now is slightly older and is running an old copy of Windows2000. It may be this computer that caused the display issue, but I saw one of your boxes at the top of this page floating over and partially obscuring some of the related text. I tweaked it so that the box displays above the text instead. If that caused it to look odd to you, please feel free to revert. I just wanted to let you know I had tweaked the code. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 10:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Please leave the comment alone about gliding action.

It is from a book. Anyway, opinions are welcome on Wikipedia as long as they are not presented as fact. Please leave this alone.