User talk:Hearfourmewesique

The user formerly known as 87.69.130.159

Welcome

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (87.69.130.159) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) 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}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog

Hello, Hearfourmewesique. You have new messages at Badmachine's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

other

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mod.^torrentrealm 07:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you got the wrong person, care to point out where exactly? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reveiwed your contributions, and it appears you are correct. I appologise fully; sorry buddy. For future reference I am going to make a statement here; As a wikipedia user, I reserve the right to screw up entirely sometimes. But in all seriousness, sorry. (PS: feel free to remove my tempalted message from above.) Mod.^torrentrealm 08:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hehe... NP at all. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

i hope this run of bad luck (mistaken identity, removed contribs ends soon! hehe badmachine (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Misusing jargon

When you don't understand jargon, it's really best to avoid it altogether. At any rate, once you learn what a "weasel word" actually is (and study up on the art of contextualizing quotations), get back to me.—DCGeist (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've explained everything on both your talk page and my edit summary. Although I've already asked you to simmer down your snide tone, it doesn't seem to affect you at all – on the other hand, neither do six blocks (!!!) in your history. Please refer to my previous explanations. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Cosmo Kramer has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bfacebook\.com (links: http://www.facebook.com/s.php?q=cosmo+kramer).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

This is a mistake and I hope the programmer behind this bot gets back to me ASAP. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Three-revert rule warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Pulp Fiction (film). Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. DocKino (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You have communicated about this matter on my Talk page, rather than on the article's, where this discussion belongs. Before you take it there--if you wish to do so--please be aware that you are using the term "weasel word" improperly. I see that this has been brought to your attention before and that, nonetheless, your misue of the term continues. And again, to repeat myself from the edit summary, your "correction"--"Despite Tarantino's statements, many solutions to this 'unexplained postmodern puzzle' (as dubbed by one scholar) have been proposed"--is grammatically improper. It also demonstrates a tin ear. Your contributions may be in good faith, but they are hardly "positive." That is the reason they are being reverted, and no other. DocKino (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My revert at Cadence (music)

Hi, I have replied at my own talk page. Thanks. Rigaudon (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Three core policies

As frustrating as it sometimes is, the comparison I make is with being a scientist. Sometimes scientists are right, but they haven't yet scientifically proven they are right, so other scientists treat them as if they are wrong, and rightly so. On Wikipedia sometimes you are right, but you haven't yet verified your facts or positions, so other editors treat you as if you are wrong, and (if you're here you apparently agree that) this is rightly so. Hyacinth (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I made a pretty good point as for the five basic senses, won't you agree? If WP:FILMPLOT is a valid policy (with which I agree 100% – by the way, it is one of my favorite policies here), then... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, chocolate isn't sweet. I think you should familiarize yourself with encyclopedic standards.

And, I think you should familiarize yourself specifically with the standards of Wikipedia before you attempt to apply parts of one project's policies or guidelines to those of another. Hyacinth (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unspecified time signatures

No, I probably don't "seriously believe" things I have never said. For the third time, if you don't like the title of section heading, feel free to rename that heading. See Wikipedia:Be bold. Is there anything in that section which indicates that the time signature is unspecified by the composer? As far as I can tell the only thing which does indicate that the time signature is unspecified by the composer is your statements, and I don't make your statements, you do.

I will caution you not to make up statements of others and not to condescendingly insult me, as with, "Thanks Einstein". "Comment on content, not on the contributor," per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Hyacinth (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is a huge misunderstanding. "Thanks Einstein" was aimed at the sources, not at you. If the time signatures are merely unspecified by a John Doe that reviewed a composition, it is quite ridiculous to include such a reference in an encyclopedia article, don't you agree? I sincerely apologize if anything I wrote offended you, that was not my intention at all. Again, my suggestion is to transcribe the signature(s) by ear and move the section to the unsourced list. Otherwise, I will repeat: this looks very unprofessional. Please tell me what you think of this suggestion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, and there is now no offense taken. In part I reacted because you wrote "why would you include a source that states" then "Thanks". In part I reacted because, if for some unknown and highly unlikely reason you had checked that distant part of the edit history you would know, as of course I do, that I was the editor who had included those sources.

To answer your question as to why I would include those sources, its because, and I think you may sympathize with me here, I wanted to lessen the hugely widespread bias towards classical music on Wikipedia. However, since that extends past Wikipedia it is difficult to, especially quickly, find sources.

However, I believe the solution to this is not to remove information regarding non-classical music. Hyacinth (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The reviewer is not a "Jane" or "John Doe". In all three cases you may click the inline citation number and be taken to a short description of the article cited which includes the name of the author.

In all three cases the author is a professional reviewer, in contrast to Wikipedia users who are unpaid volunteers. Thus my transcription would be and look more unprofessional. Hyacinth (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I want to include as many non-classical works as possible too. However, notice that I came to that article bearing two additions from the prog rock world (Genesis and Dream Theater) and sourced both. I see quite a few other non-classical examples in that list as well. Therefore, I do not see a real use for three entries quoting reviews that do not specify the time signature but rather vaguely describing it as "weird". Still, I don't wish to edit war so if you truly insist on leaving that section intact (and also gaining somewhat of a consensus with Jerome Kohl's help), we can go to the RfC board. Please tell me what you think. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For example, I could have added five to ten more examples of pieces with "unspecified" meters described as 'strange', but the list we are currently discussing is not about that. Hyacinth (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it actually is; this list has examples of critics mentioning a weird/strange/odd/whatchamacallit time signature without specifying what it is. This definitely points out that they never actually saw the score, and even provided they did – it is not properly sourced. Therefore, as I already mentioned, this section looks very amateur to me (please do not take offense). Are there really not that many non-classical examples on the whole list that we have to resort to that? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Username/account creation

Unless you live in a drastically different time zone or tonight was the exception, you appear to be primarily nocturnal, as am I. Besides the advantages below, I, and I presume many other users, find it much easier to remember someone with a distinct username rather than a random string of numbers (it took me a while to realize you were "you" on Petrushka chord!).

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

• The use of a username of your choice
• The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
• Your own user page
• Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
• The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
• The ability to rename pages
• The ability to upload images
• The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
• The eligibility to become an administrator
• The right to be heard in votes and elections
• Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create a new account. We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia as a Wikipedian!

Hyacinth (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but for personal reasons I prefer the situation as it currently is. By the way, I have no idea where you live, but my time zone is GMT+2. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

UTC-7#Mountain_Standard_Time_Zone. Hyacinth (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Until very recently I used the university library, I still use their article search, and then I try amazon and google book search which often gives one a preview of books. Hyacinth (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Since we're 9 hours apart, delayed responses are more than expected... anyway, I am going to sleep (long day tomorrow). Thanks, I've known about the book previews but I didn't know you can search within the text by keywords (as these are mostly pdf files). As for the 13th chord – the voicing in your pic looks and sounds like a garbling of diatonic thirds (with all due respect, again – please don't take offense). You are more than welcome to inquire with me regarding any doubt you might have concerning jazz theory. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Self-parody, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Self-parody was changed by 87.69.130.159 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-07-02T22:03:02+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a quote from the movie, what's up with these bots lately? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So

Cite me a source for anything you assert. Hyacinth (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

For someone who appears to have planted invalid chords and maybe other wrong information all over Wikipedia, you seem to be somewhat of a stickler to policies while constantly violating them yourself. Last call for being nice to each other? I don't want to continue with this tone, this is not what I came to Wikipedia for. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of violating Wikipedia policy without cause, as this may be considered a personal attack. While my valid contributions may frustrate you, I don't believe that they are not "nice". Hyacinth (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Hyacinth (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing without cause here. I already told you multiple times that a natural 11th in a major chord is an avoid note (while a major 10th in a sus4 chord is not – if you can't tell the difference then we have a much more serious problem here). What I meant by being nice is trying to work together and discuss reversions instead of edit warring with empty edit summaries and demanding from me to "prove" what you cannot prove yourself. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

None of which includes a violation of any policy.

As I have previously provided you with a link to Wikipedia:Edit war and specifically Wikipedia:Edit war#The Three revert rule, you know that we have not engaged in any edit wars. As such you should not accuse me of having done so, nor implicate yourself in such activity.

You have plenty of empty edit summaries yourself, and so you should avoid throwing stones.

As I have introduced to you to the core policies you know what amounts to proof on Wikipedia. Citation, not assertion. Hyacinth (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Music besides jazz

Did you know that there are genres of music besides jazz? In fact, jazz originated in the US in the 20th century and there where many genres for hundreds of years before jazz. Many of these genres have or had different "rules" or practices than jazz. Hyacinth (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you Captain Obvious! (The sarcasm in my response tantamounts to your "did you know that" so let's rule out the weak "personal attacks" defense.) Does any of these genres condone placing a note a minor 9th above the major 3rd – or above the 5th in a minor chord – or any note besides the root? Remember that we are dealing with pre-20th century music, as per your own remark; definitely not polytonal/atonal contexts. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There also continue to be genres besides jazz in the 20th century and in this century. Hyacinth (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

See my reply here. I am well aware of 20th century music. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thirteenth chord ...

Hi 87 -- I was trying to read through the various discussions on this issue. Could you please dial it back a bit? It's easier to solve these problems if you avoid sarcasm and insults; once it becomes a someone-wins-someone-else-loses, then disputes drag on nasty and ugly. -- Anyway, I get the impression you and Hyacinth are talking past each other. You're both right, but what strikes me is that the way the chord is explained in most theory textbooks is like the Ideal gas law -- it's shown built up in thirds because that is traditionally the easiest way to explain to a student who reads music -- Hyacinth's images have them that way -- but then the books typically go on to say the chord actually isn't found that way, just like no gas actually follows the ideal case. Not a perfect analogy, but it gets close. Most of the books I have describe in detail how you actually voice the thing (e.g. avoid that ugly eleventh, keep the thirteenth high). I don't have any books on jazz voicings though, and that is out of my own area of expertise. Ideally I'd like to see images, and playable examples, of different voicings (besides the Oscar Peterson example, which is good). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replied here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A vital component: good research. Hyacinth (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The assumption is that the editor in question understands the research before applying it to a massively read encyclopedia. In other words: what matters is the reader's benefit, not the editor's ego. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ISBN

Thanks, the ISBN I used was for the free examination copy, not the regular edition for purchase. Hyacinth (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Stewie

I don't know...lol, I reverted back to your edit. CTJF83Talk 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Half diminished scale

Hi! I agree that calling the scale "Locrian ♯2" is somewhat inaccurate, because it clearly contains a major second, not an augmented second. However, correcting information like that without referencing it to a reliable source is called original research. That's why I changed it in the article. It's very misleading to the reader to write "The scale is often called X, because...^[1]" if reference ^[1] doesn't support the claim that the scale is often called X. I suggest you try to find a source for the claim that the scale is called Locrian ♮2 – that shouldn't be too difficult considering how many books there are out there about scale theory. Google books can be helpful in finding sources. Jafeluv (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Seinfeld

The word was said a few episodes earlier, but the point of the summary in that paragraph is that the subject for the episode was masturbation, the subject of The Ticket was not masturbation, therefore the mention is just trivial. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That the word masturbation was used in passing in The Ticket is trivia, that is was never used when the subject of the episode was masturbation is not. You asked for as clarification on the edit, I gave it. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, may I suggest the show preview button, rather than make four corrective edits. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Synthetic modes

I have reverted your move of Synthetic modes to your userspace; you are welcome to copy it to your userspace in order to work on it, but should not remove it from the main space, especially since it was created by someone else. You can also tag the page with maintenance tags in order to highlight problems with quality and the fact that you are working on a rewrite. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand why you moved this article, but you probably should not do it. Moving the article in your userspace and blanking the redirect is akin to deleting the article, which should not be done, unless you follow one of the procedures for deletion. If you tag the article with the appropriate maintenance tags, letting people know that it is of sub-standard quality, it will be much better for the readers than having no article at all. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Hearfourmewesique.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Hearfourmewesique.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NW (Talk) 15:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tyner

The fact tags are for things already there. You don't put something in and tag your own "statement"; you tag statements already in that need to be verified. Very basic part of editing here at wikipedia. Also, do not revert edits because you don't understand why you were reverted. Cosprings (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I have come to understand so far, it's only WP:CIVIL to leave edit summaries... and vice versa. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Ruslan Sirota.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ruslan Sirota.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 07:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruslan, the picture owner, has sent the proper e-mail – please remove the tag. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I have removed the no-permission tag and added an {{OTRS pending}} tag to the page. When the email can be confirmed by a user with OTRS access, the tag will be removed. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It should take several days for them to confirm the email, once they have, they will change the pending tag to a confirmed tag. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Hooked on Monkey Fonics, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not add uncited material to Wikipedia articles. Everything in an article should be attributable to a reliable third party source. Alastairward (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the oh so warm and personal template. Please relate to my edit summary – if I do not receive a coherent reply soon, I will consider it a tenacious edit war and treat it as such. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessing articles

Anyone can assess articles by themselves for stub to B-class articles, there are formal processes for wp:good articles and wp:featured articles which anyone can be involved in. To assess an article as stub, start, c-class or b-class, you just have to edit the talk page of the article and fill in the class parameters for individual projects. it's all explained here including the quality scale: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment Tom B (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Biréli Lagrène as a 'gypsy' guitarist

I've reverted your edit on Jaco Pastorius. I've given an explanation on that article's talk page. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And replied.

Bireli's one of those irritating types who can assimilate whatever's going on around him... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY_wH15a7C0

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Hearfourmewesique. You have new messages at Snalwibma's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I commend your work on the Jaco Pastorius misconception entry. Hairhorn is known for attempting to make wikipedia HIS wikipedia. I am a jazz musician myself, and I appreciate you adding that noteworthy entry,AustinBrister (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:List of common misconceptions. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. While I will continue to discuss this issue as time permits, I will not tolerate being personally attacked, especially in a public forum. I think it likely you didn't intend to do so, which is why I'm telling you here, privately. Please remain civil so we can keep this discussion off AN/I. Thank you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would apologize, except that I do not see where, in any way, I ever attacked you. If you look up the word delusional it will eventually direct you to delusion – quote: that which is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; false belief; error in belief. If anything, you attacked me by implying that I was defaming Louis Armstrong by creating that entry, which obviously could not be further from the truth. It is a fact (backed up by reliable sources) that his public relations agents created that myth, and he played along.

Other than that, if there is anything specific that you believe implied an attack, please let me know. As I already stated multiple times, I am not here for the drama; I just want to share some of my knowledge and move on. It's a pity there is so much petty politicking on Wikipedia. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As requested, below are the problematic statements:

• UncleBubba – you are being delusional to the least.

Delusional is one of those loaded words that WP:AVOID tells us to stay away from. The word has multiple definition (at least in Webster's); one is: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also: the abnormal state marked by such beliefs.

• Seriously, lack of knowledge displayed by you and those around you do not reflect the general public as a whole.

Ouch.

• Same goes to Snalwimba and his snide "Jaco whatsisname/fretless whatsit" remarks that pretty much border on sheer ignorance.

I'm not alone, at least.

• I am genuinely wondering how come there is no entry on "Contrary to the worldwide belief, the average American does not have the IQ level of a porcupine."

The whole country?

• Is it because of lack of WP:RS? Or is it because there is nothing beyond what you know?

Sounds bellicose but--to be fair--I'm not quite sure.

• Therefore, the less you actually know, the more you'd think you do.

A rather truculent-sounding way to say that if I think I'm smart, I'm not. I think.

— UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 03:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

SP?

Whose SP are you? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to define "SP". I'm not familiar with that abbreviation. And this is a friendly notice not to violate the consensus on List of common misconceptions and not to edit war. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Please answer, or I will have to take this to WP:SPI. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think I just figured out that you mean sockpuppet. That is an accusation without basis, so you deserve the following warning:
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
If you think I'm a sockpuppet, by all means request a checkuser. Otherwise, if you have nothing to say except make false accusations then say nothing. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If I am proven wrong then I will personally apologize. Gotta go now, will pick this up later. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not holding my breath for an apology. But please, please have me fully investigated. After it is confirmed that I am not a sockpuppet, I then will report this case to WP:ANI. Shoot first and ask questions later (impulsively making a false accusation with no evidence and then apologizing) is not the way things are done on Wikipedia. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hear, making accusations of sockpuppetry can get you blocked for incivility, if edit warring doesn't get you there first. If you think 71... is a sock of someone else, take those accounts to a sockpuppet investigation. Otherwise, shutup about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Common Misconceptions

You have a habit of making false accusations, and you've been called out on it by several editors (look at the section immediately above), so my suggestion is to take the issue to the article's talk page. Nothing was "broken in an abrupt and dubious manner" and sources cited do not identify the misconceptions as COMMON misconceptions. Please read WP:3RR and WP:Edit war. Continued edit warring will result in a block. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Listen, this has gotten way out of line. I had a consensus for keeping these items, then all of a sudden hippo43 "awakens" from his block and magically, very familiar names appear to support him. Familiar – meaning that every time one of the compulsive WP deletionists needs to reach consensus, these same usernames come out of nowhere. False accusations or not, this is shady, to say the least. For the 234578646525th time, I am not here for the drama. I am not going to drag this story any further. If I see that this article resumes to its normal course, I might reinsert the music paragraph. A good amount of Google hits is a common misconception. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with this first. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself: Take it to the article's talk page, and don't edit war. Messaging me will get you nowhere. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself: I am not here for the drama. Check out the talk page and read my excruciatingly futile arguments with hippo43, back when I had some support. I would like to conserve my energy for my actual life. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

For the third time: Take it to the article's talk page. End of discussion here. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Ruslan Chick.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ruslan Chick.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ruslan Chick.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ruslan Chick.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Eeekster (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Then please answer my question on your talk page. I am trying to follow the correct procedure here and will appreciate your prompt response. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Kenny G

Hi,

I responded here

Cheers BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

water of mars/about.com

While about.com is owned by the New York Times, there is no editorial control on the content on of About.com; it is a self-published source as anyone can technically write for it and there is no editorial control on what they provide; individual experts may have the necessary reliability to include, but I would definitely not be able to include this one author for Dr Who into that. Furthermore, I point to where even this author doesn't know for sure if the name of the base is based on the song in the first place - he postulates it but that's nowhere close to the confirmation we need. The only persons that can answer that question reliably are the creators themselves. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Anna

She made one edit. Look at your reaction. And when you say, Shabbat Shalom, please try to mean it, not just in speech, but in action. Peace does not exist outside of yourself; it's within you, always. If you're going to talk the talk, please remember to walk the walk. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It was made consecutively after the other editor made the same reversal, so it smelled a bit like a "collaboration". Considering this is a heated political article, can you blame me? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique: You are probably a nice person who was just a bit hot over the article. Just for the record:

• There was no collaboration. You asked me to dig for refs? Digging into my contribs would have shown no collaboration. (Please A.G.F.)

• This is the reason I had trouble answering your question: "Do you have an explanation as for why you merely helped the other editor avoid an edit war (while almost dragging me into one) instead of what I did?" I've read that sentence 6x. Still can't make heads or tails of it.

• Why didn't I dig for the ref? I didn't want to get involved in whether or not the content belonged, but did want to get involved in the matter that it was hot and unreferenced. But, I will take Viriditas' recommendations. Next time, I will cut and paste the text to talk, and others can sort it out there.

• Handing out parking tickets? I am no deletionist. Check my contribs. I zap vandalism daily, but I very, very rarely remove unsourced content.

• Please remember the original issue. Adding hot content, with a ref only two minutes away, ought to wait, especially if you are battling, and want an edit to stick. If somebody removes it, don't get mad, blame, and make accusations of bias. And, if you lose your cool, and do, an "oops" or "sorry" is in order, not justification ("...can you blame me?").

• Red Dragon? Bitchin'! Hoffman: didn't make it. Finnes: ate lead. Hopkins: wasn't around enough, and doesn't know Chinese characters for (fava) beans. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Kenny G template

Hi,

Per Template:POV, please only use the template when there is an ongoing dispute. If you think there is much criticism of his work, simply find it and add it. No-one is disputing there is criticism or any specific criticisms on the talk page, therefore the template is inappropriate. Perhaps Template:Expand since your comment indicates it is criticism that missing. Just go ahead and add it, only use the {{POV}} when there's an active disagreement. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The dispute can be found here and it doesn't look like it's over. The article is written one-sidedly, therefore the template is more than appropriate. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The first post in that thread is from 2007, and the final was from May of this year. I don't think this warrants a template, and since I didn't see any sources on a quick scan (and you didn't contribute an opinion) the dispute doesn't seem to be ongoing. That template is going to sit there for months to years, and it's still not appropriate to retain because it's not an ongoing dispute. No-one is talking about the page being non-neutral right now. Please note the template usage notes (emphasis added):

• Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article.
• The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor.
• The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
• This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

I may try to get to it, using the two sources provided at the bottom by an anonymous editor, but I really don't care that much at all and really no-one is actively disputing anything. Per the usage notes, the templates should be removed. The purpose of the tag is not to apply vague criticism, which is all it is doing right now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Katie Couric

Please read WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Your next edit/revert will put you at risk of WP:3RR as well. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• You are on four reverts on this article, please stop mark nutley (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley is correct. You are past 3RR with a revert I missed. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me give you some more informal advice. The next time you visit my talkpage, please do not make unfounded accusations. They are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What is unfounded here? You are all clinging to the same feeble excuses that keep changing at almost every revert! What else am I supposed to think here? And by the way, please show me the precise quote from the policies you are advising me to read that justify this farce to begin with. Given, of course, the following facts: 1) there are seven reliable sources; 2) this follows the remark that the Palin interview was from an extremely negative perspective; 3) the video is raw and unedited (all sources back up this claim) and 4) it is a fact that presents a side of Couric that is otherwise not generally presented to the public. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You can read the afore mentioned policies. If you choose not to abide by them, that is your choice. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, you can also read WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is how Wikipedia is editted. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You are telling me I violated policies – the WP:BURDEN is on you. Otherwise, you are throwing baseless accusations at me, which, as per your claim, violate WP:NPA. Also, a consensus reached by violating policies is not a valid one. I am the one who is trying to abide by policies, mostly WP:NPOV; you are the ones trying to keep the article in a fansite fashion by teaming up to reach nonsensical "consensuses". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The talk page (and BLP and NPOV boards) document a concessus. Your claim is that the concensus is the result of tag teaming. Demonstrate that and you might have a point. Otherwise, you are left with following the concensus or working to change it. Editing against the concensus is not an option. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have demonstrated it multiple times, here, on the article talk, on the NPOV board, and on Morenooso's talk page. I see that feigning incomprehension is another technique used to preserve the illegitimate consensus. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please show where I have been contacted by the other editors, edited with them in other articles or in what way we have decided to work together (other than as all editors should work together: to build a better encyclopedia). If you feel I am "feigning incomprehension" of something you have written on Morenooso's talk page, I'm not sure why you believe I've been reading hir talk page. Now I'm curious. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems the "evidence" on Morenooso's talk page is your belief that I am part of a group of editors who are fans of Couric. Interesting. Baseless, but interesting. Looking at the article's history, I see that I've made roughly 5 edits to the article. That's roughly 0.01% of my edits. I don't see what makes me a fan. I do see that I originally came to the article following a POV-pushing sock puppet who decided I was Kouric's assistant. Draw your own conclusions. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finally satisfying my curiosity. This is the oh-so-familiar Wikipedia pattern of "outgaming" the "tenacious" editor who brings along a "controversial" piece of information... and the quotation marks are there to accentuate the absurdity of these titles. I say tag team, you say sockpuppet. I say I could care less about this situation because I have done whatever I could within the boundaries of Wikilaw without getting too ugly. Anything beyond this point would be "tendentious" and "trouble-stirring", and I will eventually get banned for not shutting up soon enough. I've seen this happen to too many editors to let this happen to me, so yes, I'm walking away. If I get any support on the NPOV page I'll be more than happy to collaborate. You dare talking about POV pushing? All of you have been POV pushing with words like "tabloid", "non-event", "minor", "non-biographical"... oh – and the deletionist's delight – "trivia" (ooooooohhhhhh). Your excuses kept changing from "unsourced" to "YouTube is not a reliable source" to "one reliable source is not enough" to "undue weight because there is only one source" to "tabloid" to "undue weight no matter how many sources". Some in direct contradiction, some completely unrelated to reality. All to exclude this little piece of information that might actually show a less favorable side of Katie Couric, although covered by multiple reliable secondary/tertiary sources that do not question the primary source at all; the only people questioning all these sources and calling them tabloids (LA Times, NBC and others... wow, couldn't be further from tabloids) are you, the editors. Draw your own conclusions. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a interesting situation. Katie Couric is wildly believed to have put the nail in Palin's coffin during her interview with her. Palin and Palin's supporters wildly believe that Couric interview with Palin was intentionally misleading in order to paint Palin in a negative light. This incident has been viewed by Palin's supporters to be evidence that Couric had a bias going into the interview. Some of the sources make this distinction. By itself this incident is pretty much trivia as others have mentioned, however when tied to her interview it becomes an extension of the interview (they both actually happened within days of each other). The real question is whether there are reliable sources that really discuss this aspect. Unless there is significant evidence that this connection has been made it will be difficult to incorporate this into the article. My interjection into the discussion is not going to change the outcome, and your most likely ally has already chimed in against inclusion. Call it the nature of WP. Arzel (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record no one, but no one, called the LA Times, NBC and others tabloids. And I didn't call you a sock. Yet. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Also for the record, shopping around for supporters[1][2][3] is not a good idea. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing is not a good idea, but Drll and I both had contributed prior to his messages so there is nothing wrong there. Courcelles protected the page so it is perfectly fine to ask for them to weigh in. Arzel (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like going underground with e-mails and such. If I feel attacked and want some support it's perfectly legitimate. I've found sources that connect the mocking with the interview, I'll bring them up on the NPOV board. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Katie Couric. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --moreno oso (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Please review this sentence of the above warning and take it to heart. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus#Yeshu

-Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 00:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Here Kitty

The only source in the article didn't mention House in any way. The rest was unsourced plot summary and trivia. Per WP:EPISODE, such articles are to be redirected. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Did you even read what I said?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and you are wrong. Nowhere in that policy is it allowed to initiate such radical action without prior tagging/discussion. I suggest you read it again, very carefully, and act appropriately instead of edit warring. Thank you. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty rich, given your own propensity to edit-war over trivial information. KaySL^talk 15:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

House episodes

I am opening up discussion on article talk pages (which are intact even after a redirect). You can find them in my edit history. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I gotta go now, will pick this up later. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael Moore

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Wikispan (talk)

It takes two to tango... and edit-war, so you might consider notifying yourself as well. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on multiple articles. It's BRD, not BRDRDRDRDRDR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It would have been at least courteous of you to wait for me to actually do something after receiving the 3RR warning above... wutevah. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOUSE

I see you are interested in the Fox series House MD. Would you be interested in joining the wikiproject? Thanks--Talktome^(Intelati) 02:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pianists

An article goes only into the narrowest appropriate category, and does not simultaneously get filed in that category's parents too. That is, if a person is in Category:Israeli jazz pianists, then he does not go in Category:Israeli pianists, or Category:Israeli musicians, or Category:Jazz pianists, or Category:Jazz musicians, or Category:Pianists — because Category:Israeli jazz pianists itself is already contained in those other categories. There's nothing to justify on my end; this is standard Categorization 101. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization. Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Careful

The word "vandalism" is reserved for edits which are malicious in nature. If you call an edit 'vandalism', you are implying that I did it deliberately to be a jerk, to ruin things. Consider what this says.

Also note that a lot of the edits I make to userpages are to remove spam or otherwise inappropriate content, such as in the Jagdish Rai Singh draft. DS (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That said, I do understand your concern. However, this is legitimate. DS (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to deal with your comment re: the collage image (terribly sorry about that, entirely my fault!), so in brief: we have to err on the side of caution regarding things like copyright violation. For a collage like that, you'd have to have clearance for every source image, because they're still recognizable. DS (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Re:image. Where's the line here? Would you delete an image that contains a triangle because it's recognizable? Please point me to the appropriate policy because I still believe I was not violating copyright.
• Re:user pages. What you are saying here definitely applies to articles, but not user pages. Correct me if I'm wrong... and yes, I apologize for the lack of WP:AGF displayed earlier. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are some guidelines for collages and such. Note that these apply to Commons, where there's no Fair Use -- but also note that Wikipedia doesn't allow Fair Use images in userspace. And above all else, it's not your own work. It's based on images that other people made. DS (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And yes, you're wrong about userpages. I remove information which is overly promotional in nature, or which could otherwise be problematic. We're not here to provide free adspace. If a userpage is obviously an article draft, one is perfectly allowed to improve it. DS (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Before even reading the article (thanks for the links), your core statement ("it's not your own work") is wrong; I used bits and pieces to create an entirely different image altogether (try applying the same statement to, let's say, Andy Warhol). Moreover, it is akin to stating that all of Wikipedia constitutes copyright infringement and should be outright deleted, because it only cites other people's work. Just like references used in articles are reworded, bits of images used in my collage have been altered. That's what I meant in my original reply to you. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

While you may have created the collage work by yourself, the underlying images are still entirely the same. Your analogy to text fails in that while the underlying ideas in articles are taken from academic articles, we do not simply copy/paste pages from multiple textbooks, lightly modify them, and then call that an article that we are allowed to relicense. NW (Talk) 02:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael Moore. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

...and your constant reversals are not? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is with the editor adding controversial, disputed content to BLP's. You need to directly answer questions about this material and work towards agreement on the talk page before adding it. Default is exclusion, not inclusion. You've also misused primary sources and asserted significance where none appears to exist. Continually adding this material and erasing improvements to the lead section as you have just done is disruptive. Repeatedly forcing your edits into the article is not the way forward. Your block log shows that you were previously blocked for the same behavior on the same article approximately one month ago, so an administrator will not take kindly to seeing a repeat offender if they review this case. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course he would. Good for you, engaging in dirty Wikipolitics instead of trying to make constructive contributions to articles. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Engaging in the same behavior that got you blocked previously will reflect poorly on you. This has nothing to do with "wikipolitics" and everything to do with your style of editing and your quality of edits. Now, with that said, I would be more than happy to work with you. But you will also need to make an effort. Looking at the talk page, I see much discussion, but l don't see how you've responded to the points that have been raised with modifications to the article. And, you've all but ignored my questions and comments. This can't continue. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Tarc

Bsadowski was rolling back a disruptive edit made by a sock of banned User:Grundle2600. Please don't restore it. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Archer (TV)

I did not vandalize Archer. --98.216.243.219 (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality of music theory articles

I have noticed that you participated in numerous discussions about the correctness of chord depictions made by Hyacinth. Just like you and a few others I am speechless about his stubborn ignorance and lack of understanding of basic music theory principles. Editors like him should be forbidden to edit music theory articles altogether. Is there anything that has been made about this so far? As an sporadic anonymous contributor I am obviously not very familiar (or even interested) with (in) Wiki politics, but something like an "investigation of quality" should be conducted. Otherwise it will degrade the standard of these articles even more. Right now they are not suitable for self-study or the deepening of one's knowledge. It is also rather striking that most of these incorrect examples are said to be sourced although they are clearly incorrect to the trained eye. I wonder if his incompetence is in fact just a very elaborated disguise for trolling and vandalism. Do you have an advice or an idea what can be done about this whole situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.183.97 (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of edit on Family Guy

Hi, you recently reverted an edit done on the article Family Guy. This was done by the user Ctjf83 on my behalf in order to fulfill an edit request. The issue was discussed at length on talk pages for the Family Guy and Criticism of Family Guy articles and a consensus was reached to condense the criticism on the former article to a summary, with a redirect to the latter article for more details. Several editors were involved in making sure that no properly-sourced information was removed from the encyclopedia by making sure all sources from the FG article appear in the article dedicated to its criticism.

If you'd like to contribute to the discussion of improving the Family Guy article, I'd encourage you to post on that article's talk page and your opinions and contributions would be valued. 96.228.129.74 (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: November 2010

Okay first off, I don't know why you're coming to me, accusing me of game when I haven't done anything that constitutes as such. Second, I also don't know why you'd have the gall to call me out on 3RR when you yourself are also in violation of 3RR and were in violation before I was. I asked to take it to talk and refused, making another accusation that I was being disruptive. But if I'm not too mistaken, you were the one who started this edit war, you were the one who was first in line of 3RR violation, so the smart thing would have been for you to go and complain at the talk page. So I'd suggest you disses your kettle and bad faith accusations, cause I guarantee that you'll be in as much trouble as I if you were to bring this before the admins. As your comments are coming off as Wikilawyering.

Now your argument stating that plot supports the inclusion of information does not apply to such an inclusion of unsourced information in a cultural reference section, that only applies to the plot section. Regardless of how obvious a factoid is to something, is no justification for inclusion of unsourced statements. Any trivial information is to be verified with reliable sources regardless of how obvious you think it may be. Not everybody is familiar with that LeBron James commercial, so you can't assume that everybody will automatically come in knowing what's going on. Without sourcing, there will always be people to challenge the claim. Especially as the trivia becomes dated. Sarujo (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Coon vs. Coon and Friends. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

WP:NOR

Hello. I have reverted your change to I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That) because it violates our no original research policy. It doesn't matter how many people agree that there are similarities to that film; if it's not referenced to a source it is original research. The person who originally posted that was particularly naughty as they placed it were readers could mistakenly think it was attributed to a source. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Smooth jazz

Smooth jazz IS a subgenre of jazz, since the pioneers of the genre (George Benson, Chuck Mangione, etc.) all root their influences to musicians of older styles of jazz (Wes Montgomery, Miles Davis, etc.). Please do not try to push POV. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 16:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

How come it's not defined as a subgenre of R&B or funk then? Until you can cite it to a reliable source, I'm pinning an ^{[original research?]} tag on that statement. You cannot accuse me of POV pushing while doing the exact same thing. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I could of course turn that around and suggest that if you think it is not a subgenre of jazz, that you should also be bold and cite sources for that. Although I have an obvious bias as I am a fan of smooth jazz, you could if your arguments of original research and no sources to verify the notability, existence and name of the genre stand, alongside the numerous problems the article has had and I have pointed out in the past, nominate the article for deletion (alongside contemporary jazz too), although I would say from a neutral standpoint now such a thing is unlikely to succeed. Difficult, because I have had difficulty trying to find a reliable source which is widely accepted and not deleted, but clearly with the genre's history, influence on US radio, worldwide appeal, artists, listeners and wide coverage of the name through a search on Google, deletion is unlikely to succeed. Hmm, difficult one this. --tgheretford (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly object to deletion, simply because smooth jazz definitely exists and is largely notable. On the other hand, I've grown tired of "the average Joe" telling me something along the lines of "Oh, you play jazz! I love jazz, I even bought a Kenny G CD for my wife." George Benson, of course, is a great player, and his improvisation is largely jazz based. On the other hand, so is Kenny Kirkland's solo on the live version of "Bring on the Night" or Branford Marsalis' solo on "Englishman in New York"; still, neither of these songs is classified as jazz, nor is Sting considered a jazz artist despite his many influences. This common confusion, when introduced in the lead paragraph of a Wikipedia article, contributes to the well-overly ignorant "miseducation" of the masses. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally think there should be some differentiation on the smooth jazz genre vs. the smooth jazz radio format. While Sting's music is played on terrestrial smooth jazz radio, no true smooth jazz fan would consider him to be a smooth jazz musician, regardless whether smooth jazz is a subgenre of jazz or not. Also, Kenny G seems to be a stereotypical example of a smooth jazz musician, despite not inventing the genre. Kenny G himself roots his influences to Grover Washington Jr., who was one of the pioneers of the smooth jazz genre. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 01:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding original research to The Finale (Seinfeld)‎

I understand that you don't think it is original research; please use the article talk page to discuss the issue. Thanks. Dlabtot (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to start a discussion, and I'll gladly join it, but I've already explained to you why this is not WP:OR, and I quoted the appropriate part of the policy itself. Prove me wrong and you can remove it, otherwise it stays. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I did start a discussion; you can find it here: Talk:The_Finale_(Seinfeld)#RfC:_Does_the_Legal_Flaws_section_constitute_original_research.3F Please do go there to say what previously published reliable source this analysis is based upon. I would also suggest a review of WP:BURDEN. Thank you for your respectful collaboration. Dlabtot (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm not the original editor who added this content, I've proven its validity as being an independent and neutral compilation of compared/contrasted facts that are easily verifiable. You, on the other hand, keep chanting "original research" without backing it up, this is purely disruptive. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Asking someone adding unsourced material to an article to provide a source for it, and then filing an RFC to determine the opinions of other editors to see their thoughts isn't exactly disruptive. Let's just let this one play out at the article, everybody. Dayewalker (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but ignoring multiple explanations as for why it's not an analysis and doesn't need to be sourced as such is disruptive. Please re-read my previous responses, as well as the respective policy I've quoted earlier. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Twelve-bar blues

Hello, Hearfourmewesique. You have new messages at Talk:Twelve-bar_blues#Merge_discussions_(originally_moved_from_Talk:Jazz_blues).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BassHistory (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

American Dad!

Hello, Hearfourmewesique. You have new messages at Talk:List of American Dad! characters#RfC: Style guide standards on fiction.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I invite you to weigh in on the topic at the talk page. Thanks!Luminum (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, a minor change in the Wiki link.Luminum (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Dablink at The Big One (Dexter)

I'm fairly certain that this sort of link is erroneous. WP:INTDABLINK is the relevant policy page. Cheers, The Interior(Talk) 21:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That as may be, but in this case there is no relevant article. Usually this would be erroneous to point to a redundant place, but in this case it clarifies the origin of the phrase "Through a Glass, Darkly" and offers a possible explanation as for the title confusion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If your purpose is to clarify the origin of the phrase, the dab page does not help. If you wish to explain the title confusion, I would suggest a sentence in the article. As there is no article for the phrase itself, the dablink doesn't meet the guideline, I'm afraid. There is an entire WikiProject devoted to delinking links to Dab pages (WP:DPWL), so if its not me who delinks it, it will happen eventually. Don't want to start a major dispute over a minor issue, but your rationale for keeping it does go against the Disambiguation policy. The Interior(Talk) 20:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If I add that sentence it will be instantly devoured by WP:OR hunters. The dab link looked like a good compromise. Do you have an idea for an amicable solution? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, let me look into it in a bit more detail, I have been looking at it purely from a dab-delinkers perspective here. What info are you are trying to get across to the reader? It appears that there is a citation already to show the use of the working title, so I'm missing the OR. The Interior(Talk) 20:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This quote applied to numerous films and TV episodes, which might have generated the fans' confusion. It's a mere explanation where else this phrase can be found. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think we should either link to the 1 Corinthinians subsection, which would give the reader some background on the phrase, or simply leave it unlinked. This is an anecdote, not the subject of the article, so we don't need to go too far in explaining its significance. We have think in terms of what information the reader is seeking. If they wanted to know about "Through a glass, darkly", that is what they would search. The dab page is purely a navigational aid, and it does direct readers to the Dexter article. The Interior(Talk) 21:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Another solution would be to create a List of works named "Through a Glass, Darkly" which would be fun, and could be used as you wish to use the Dab page, i.e. illustrative of the many appearances of the phrase in the arts. The Interior(Talk) 21:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, but in that case the dab page ceases to be of any use. Therefore, this is my solution: take the dab page, reformat, rename and redirect. Is this acceptable? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think we can do that. Again, the Dab page is a navigational aid, but the List article would be specifically a article on the phrase's use as a title. Perhaps we are over-engineering the solution to this. I really don't think its within the scope of the Big One article to get into historical uses of its unofficial working title. I've got to head out for the day, we've involved ourselves in a real "thinker" here, best, The Interior(Talk) 22:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bloginity

Hi Hearfourmewesique. I noticed your comment on the Fanpop.com deletion page and was hoping to get your opinion on a page I have created, Bloginity which is also up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bloginity. (Knox387 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

To help me assess the sources, could you please work on adding inline citations to the footnotes? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time Hearfourmewesique. I've added the notes and recommend to see this reference video which indicates brand recognition from an NBC affiliate where both the founder and a Bloginity representative gave their opinion on a celebrity case. The website is being acknowledged as an online magazine. . Once again thank you kindly for your assistance. This is my first page and any feedback is just a great help (Knox387 (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)).

I guess you're missing the point of inline citations: they must accompany the source itself for verifiability purposes. Perhaps Template:Citation can be of use for you. Unfortunately, without these steps, your article will be eventually deleted, as this is considered amateur writing that has no encyclopedic value to it, only self-promotion, which is strictly prohibited. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hearfourmewesique, thanks for the instruction. This is giving me a great experience and I am learning a lot. I have added Template:Citation for the article and have included publisher names, date, and quotation as well as titles. I want to confirm that this article is 100% non-promotional and that I really enjoying the contribution, the feedback and the comments you are giving me as I am learning how to deal with Wikipedia much better every day. (Knox387 (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)).

I would advise you to re-read Template:Citation and then read a few article sources to see how references are formatted here. You are STILL missing the point. I'll give you an example of how a citation should look like:

• Bloginity has been used as a source by prominent online news outlets, such as Yahoo!<ref name="Kardashian">{{cite web|url=http://ca.news.yahoo.com/kim-kardashians-busy-life-takes-york-city-20101105-154100-831.html|title=Kim Kardashian's Busy Life Takes New York City|last=Browning|first=William|date=Nov. 5, 2010|quote=Kanye West attended the grand opening according to Bloginity.|publisher=[[Yahoo!]]/[[Associated Content]]|accessdate=Jan. 24, 2011}}</ref> and others.
  
  

Naturally, feel free to substitute "and others" for as many sources as you wish. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the great example. I'm going to review carefully the original page to make sure it works fine. I also wonder if this would have any impact on the page as well (Knox387 (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

Unfortunately, no – since it won't pass for a reliable source. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hearfourmewesique, I noticed your comment on the AfD page and wanted to thank you for recognizing the effort. As I said, I am trying my best to learn from this experience and improve the page itself, as well as helping and contributing with other pages in the future. If you ever need help with anything feel free to write me and I will try and do my best to help out. (96.232.139.95 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)).

Glass Hammer song

Hello, Hearfourmewesique. You have new messages at Talk:Through a Glass Darkly#Glass Hammer song.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--ShelfSkewed Talk 19:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Stanley Clarke Band

Hi, I'm a bit confused about the tag that you added to The Stanley Clarke Band. It needs to be rewritten entirely? Promotional tone? I'm sorry but I'm not seeing it. There are positive quotes in there but there are also negative quotes. I suppose I'm biased as I wrote the article but I'm not even a fan of the album/artist/genre just someone who saw that there was a notable album without article and decided to write one. Take care J04n(talk page) 01:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll second the question, would you mind going to the talk page of the article and being more specific about your problem with the article? Nothing stands out as overly promotional at first glance. Dayewalker (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall, the language is not entirely encyclopedic (PC speaking); the article needs to be heavily proof-read and rearranged. I will attend to it during these next couple of days. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Leaving a tag in place without giving constructive recommendations is not helpful to anyone. "the language is not entirely encyclopedic" I'm quoting you there is not a "Detailed explanation on my talk page" quoting your edit summary in your revert of Dayewalker. If you want to edit the article go for it if not kindly remove the tag. J04n(talk page) 00:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there's still no indication whatsoever why it's been applied, I've removed the tag. Making a single comment here on your own talk page isn't sufficient to leave a tag an article. That's just drive-by tagging, and doesn't help anyone. If you wish to improve the article, please do so. If you have a specific concern, please voice it on the article's talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary jazz

Hi, as I noted at Talk:Contemporary jazz, until today I had never seen the term "contemporary jazz" the way you have used it. Please weigh in at that talk page. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

3RR Alert

Actually, you've performed 5 reverts in one day, and it has been reported hereThe Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring, as you did at Weeds (TV series). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 02:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Hello, Hearfourmewesique. You have new messages at Anna Frodesiak's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Weeds

Please revert your last addition of the disputed material on the Weeds page while it's under discussion. There's no consensus to keep it, and you've been reported for edit warring on that very issue before. Two editors have removed it, please self-revert in the interest of avoiding an edit war. Dayewalker (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologize for not responding, but I've been swamped. I knew I'd get to it at some point. Usually it's not hard to find a source - only takes a bit of time. It took about 20 minutes in google archives playing around with different search terms to find this. I thought that was a better use of time than arguing on the talk page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you please write up a brief summary of the "niqib" incident from episode 7x04 with the names of the three actors? I may have a place to put it on the "Weeds characters" page.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hangover 2

I've moved the discussion to the article discussion page. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Borge

Go to about 4:10 of this clip.[4] Or, feel free to watch the whole thing. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Many apologies

Hello H. I know that you would probably rather not hear from me but I have to leave this message anyway. I offer my profound apologies. The more that I remembered Mr Borge's concerts that I saw (and they are treasured memories) the more I knew that I had got things wrong. The nonsense is all mine. I was very stupid in this and I will try and do better in the future. Please feel free to delete this after reading and have a good week in spite of our interaction. MarnetteD | Talk 18:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us. No worries. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:JARGON

reprinted here for your convenience, with emph added rel [5]

"While some topics are intrinsically technical, editors should take every opportunity to make them accessible to an audience wider than the specialists in the field, and to a general audience where possible. Jargon should be explained or avoided. {Cleanup-jargon} or {Jargon-statement} can be used to tag articles with jargon problems. An alternative for unavoidably technical articles is to write a separate introductory article (Introduction to special relativity). Avoid introducing too many new words for the purpose of "teaching the reader some new words" that are specialized to a field, when more common alternatives will do. Also, wikilinking as a mechanism for explanation (rather than a parenthetical in the article) is poor form, especially if done repeatedly."

In addition, your piped link term is an "ethnic slur" (according to the article you want to link to)- wikipedia has no business utilizing ethnic slurs when not used in direct quote. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not a slur in this context, specifically in this paragraph, quote: "The term[...]has infiltrated into mainstream American English use, specifically in association with American youth movements such as the "lowrider" subculture, or the hip hop scene in general. The word is sometimes associated with Hispanic gang culture, especially in popular media." It is even specified that "Despite, or because of, its long history of denigrating semantics, the term Cholo was turned on its head and used as a symbol of pride in the context of the ethnic power movements of the 1960s." The "intrinsically technical jargon" does not apply in this case, since it's not a "tech geek" article. Finally, Wikipedia encourages us to write articles using our own words rather than exactly copying sources. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion. If you would like to clarify your postion, please feel free. Talk:Guillermo_Díaz_(actor)#Third_opinion_requested

you can explain your position at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Use_of_the_word_.22cholo.22_to_describe_a_type_of_role_in_Guillermo_D.C3.ADaz_.28actor.29

You're getting old: Custer's Revenge clip

Will this do? http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/You're_Getting_Old/Trivia

I hope that a suitable reference can be found, as it's an interesting cultural reference in the programme and worth including in the article. Epa101 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's a definite no as it violates both WP:RS and WP:TRIVIA; besides, your definition of the video game as "one of the worst" (again, without any sources to back it up) violates WP:NPOV as well. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that it's really trivia. As far as anything can be important in a South Park episode, I think that this is as it's connected with the meaning of the episode. The WP:RS is a more difficult one. It might be mentioned on IMDb after a while. Finally, the "one of the worst" would be the easiest part to fix, as there are a lot of references for that: Top Ten Shameful Games, GT Countdown: Top Ten Best and Worst Games of All Time, EGM's Crapstavaganza: The Twenty Worst Games of All Time. Epa101 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, the problem is sourcing claims such as this one (the episode is about things that look shitty and here's a shitty videogame), actually more about sourcing the connection which, as obvious as it may seem to you, will seem trivial and/or unrelated to another editor, potentially causing a neverending string of debates/edit wars. Reading WP:SYNTH might clarify a few things. Unfortunately, this is how Wikipedia works, as it relies on the WP:Five pillars. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Big One

Hello there, please direct me to this established consensus that enables a claim to be referenced by tv.com (woefully unreliable) and a fansite fanpop.com? I'm not arguing that the sentence deserves a place in the article, I'm just saying that the references are unreliable and in themselves do not support it. Thanks. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 15:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The claim is that the fake title was promoted over fansites, supported by the same fansites. This should pretty much remove any reasonable doubts... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, TV.com is a CBS franchise. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that you think TV.com is a reliable source because it's owned by CBS? The content is not produced by CBS, it is produced by readers/editors, similar to Wikipedia (it was even recently petitioned that it be removed as an external link but there was no consensus), and no the claim that the fake title was promoted over fansites is not supported by referencing 2 fansites, you would need to provide a reference to an official capacity stating that it was indeed promoted under that title by fansites, such as an interview or a preview by a professional reviewer giving the episode that name. I'm reverting, please do not put the information in until it has a suitable reference. Cheers. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 16:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"I'm reverting"... how cute. No you're not. We're mid-discussion here, you boldly removed content that was established by discussion, now please follow WP:BRD. The claim is: episode was promoted by fansites under a fake title, supported by fansites that promoted the episode under that fake title. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Try to remain civil, yes we are in mid-discussion, meaning that there is content that is being challenged; the default in situations such as these is to keep the information out until a consensus has been reached. You have still not provided me a diff to the discussion that I asked for a while ago in which it states that it is acceptable for a claim to be referenced by unreliable sources.

There was more of a challenge to prove the other editor's claims, which he failed to do. You have not addressed my claim above, please do. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The content is still in the article because I do not want to pointlessly edit war with you, however, the content is still unacceptable and what you have just described does not sound like consensus by a long shot and additionally you have still not provided me with a diff to the actual discussion. Also... which claim is it that I have not addressed? That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 16:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll give an example: the claim "the girl in the picture is holding a dog" can be verified by the picture of the girl holding a dog, without the need of an official saying she's really holding a dog. The claim that the title was promoted over fansites can be verified by providing links to the same websites. As for the diff, there is none – read my response above. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see where we may not be on the same ideas here... the fact that the name was promoted across fansites is not supported by its appearance in some (namely 2) fansites, a primary source is not allowable in this case because just its appearance in a website does not mean that a mistake was not made by TV.com that was replicated or somesuch. However, if a source can be found that is reliable that does use this name under an official capacity, then the claim will be acceptable. And yes, you've mentioned a discussion, how can there be no link to said discussion? That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 17:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wutevz... ain't worth the hassle. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Abandoned pets

I read your explanation for reverting my link removal, and would like to point out that the use of the word "noble" is rather subjective. In addition, it doesn't seem to meet the guidelines included in "what to link". Could you perhaps explain in more detail why you feel this link ought to be included? Brambleclawx 18:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is about animals that are in vital need of attention, and the link points to a website that helps with the same cause. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article is written to inform, while the link provided is meant to help people find animal shelters. The two seem only indirectly related, don't you think? The point of external links is to provide further information on the topic, and the link in question seems to be there simply to promote a service of some sort (that I do not doubt some people are in need of, but nonetheless, Wikipedia is neither a diretory, means of promotion, nor a how to guide). Brambleclawx 21:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but... this is a non-profit organization that helps a cause in need described in the article, can we please invoke WP:IAR? I mean... what is normally considered spam is people trying to make a monetary profit out of an article subject, and this is far from the case here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wouldn't agree to the usage of IAR here...

External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs... Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

We can't list one organization and not another, and Wikipedia can't show favouritism like that. If we ignored that rule, we'd have to list every non-profit organization that deals with abandoned pets in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Brambleclawx 01:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Then, by all means, let's find more and list them. And what defines a "major organization" anyway? Also, they help abandoned pets, which are the topic of the article. We cannot abuse rules to prevent helping the needy, even if they are animals; this is all it's about, not "favouritism" of the organization: you're not helping an organization (spam), you're helping the cause itself. I really don't know how else to put this. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But my point is Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote a cause either, even if it is for the benefit of the needy. Wikipedia's point is to inform, not to instruct/promote. Brambleclawx 00:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever... I have voiced my concern more than enough, if you wish to adhere to rules there is nothing I can do to stop you. This is exactly why I pleaded for WP:IAR to begin with. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

RE: West Side Story Please see the Wikipedia policy on "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed" at WP:NOT. The guidelines at WP:TRIVIA also apply here. Thank you.JeanColumbia (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not trivia, but rather a valid addition/completion of the previous statistics, such as the number of performances and previews. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

SPI

No. I lost the password to my account so I've been editing as an IP since July 2011. Just recently I got this IP dress. Regarding the reverting and such, perhaps we should discuss it on the article's talk page before one of us breaks WP:RRR?--108.67.204.170 (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've started the discussion there. My SPI question arose when I noticed that nearly all your edits "tail" JeanColumbia's edits on the same pages, roughly around the same interest areas. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

War Horse

Why are you deleting the synopsis from War Horse (film)?--108.67.204.170 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier (again, tendency to ignore), it's an encyclopedia, not a billboard. Apart from the obvious WP:COPYVIO, it's a word-for-word copy of an advertising text that ceased to serve its purpose the moment the movie got past its initial screenings. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You want to delete a synopsis from a movie's page? Seriously? --91.10.26.218 (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you people even trying to read my replies??? Or is it just a barrage of token comments? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That synopsis is NOT word-for-word text from an advertisement. It's "clean", so to speak.--108.67.204.170 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about your edit comments? Then I'm afraid I don't find any rationale to remove the synopsis from a movie article. Please elaborate. --91.10.26.218 (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I know you're upset, but I've told I'm not JeanColumbia, so the SP case is not needed. And you can add back the WSS ticket info now; I agreed to put it back in.--108.67.204.170 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me? This is the reason for entering an edit war and starting SPIs? --91.10.26.218 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Civility, anyone?? I don't think that's the reason: I thought the edit war was over whether or not that synopsis should be included at all as a potential copyvio, not whether it should be called "synopsis" or "plot." Jsharpminor (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Then, once more, I don't understand his edit comment, and he should take care to write better ones. --91.10.26.218 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Multiple recent reverts

You may want to take a step back and take a closer look at revert policy. Generally speaking, the correct procedure is bold, revert, discuss: an editor steps in and edits an article, and when that edit is reverted, it is then discussed. Not reverted back and forth until "one of us breaks 3RR": you seem to be under the mistaken impression that 3RR is a license; it's not. One revert is understandable; one revert from each side should definitely call people to attention. Two reverts is pushing the limit; three reverts is guaranteed to cause problems. 3RR isn't a guideline, it's a bright-line rule: it means that if you cross that bright line, you're absolutely, definitely, out of bounds, no further questions need to be asked before being blocked. And whether the sort of problems revert-warring causes are blocks or just edit wars and disputes, you shouldn't be reverting pages three times as you've done on both West Side Story and War Horse (film) today.

Please be careful, and realize that you may scare off other editors by reverting their work multiple times. Jsharpminor (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, I usually act this way when being reverted multiple times by someone else. While you are right, with me it's almost always the "chicken and the egg" situation. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad style

This is bad style. People replied to that, the replys are hanging in the air. Next time, use strike throughs. --91.10.26.218 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Like this. Sorry, I checked your changes one by one. --91.10.26.218 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

August 13, 2011

Oops! Your recent edit to the page General Hospital appears to have added incorrect information and has been swept up. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you think you were right, thus making me wrong, prove it! Alternatively, before making the changes, run them by the folks on the article's talk page. Remember that the sandbox is there for any tests that you wish to make. Have no idea what you're doing? Check out the welcome page. Thank you. Farine (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Have no idea what you're doing? Look into the edit instead of leaving irrelevant comments. First time you reverted yourself, this is the second time – is your bot acting up on its own? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Yes I did originally add the Uw-error1 template yesterday. But since the false information you've had from the General Hosspital article was removed, I had decided the delete the message I had left on your userpage. But since you've reinserted the inaccurate info on the article, I had to reactive the comment I left on your talk page.

I understand your good faith of wanting the revert the edits of 64.218.107.36 because this user has vandalized many pages on Wikipedia to the point that he (she) was blocked yesterday. But in this particular situation, his (her) edits were legit. It is user 68.36.52.98 who was wrong in the first place for adding this information about General Hospital airing on Prospect Park. That's why it is important to always pay a good attention to all edits. Even it comes from a reputed vandal, an edit may not necessairily be vandalism. Thank you for your understanding Farine (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding, but I saw the edits in question. With respect to these soap opera articles, there is an anonymous IP-hopping user that has been vandalizing soap articles for a very long time now. Hallmarks of his/her obsession include adding false information about soaps being cancelled in 2020(!), moving to on-line distribution (this goes back a long ways and originated with a fan-fiction effort that was misrepresented as official), and the more recent Prospect Park material. While there are occasionally some valid details added, editors need to be aware of the obsessive nature of this individual. Frankly, anything that drivers him/her away is of great benefit to the project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 19:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Voice acting

I've always felt that by stating somebody is a "voice actor" independently of them being an actor implies that voice acting is a lesser form of acting. Gran² 17:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is a personal view, as voice acting is not a "lesser" form of acting, but different altogether, to the point that it actually merits a different category. Not every actor can be a voice actor, and vice-versa. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's not the same term, why does the article on voice acting state "Performers are called voice actors/actresses or voice artists"? Gran² 19:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Before using that as a reference, please familiarize yourself with WP:Citing Wikipedia: there are not nearly enough sources in that article to strengthen that claim. Besides, why do you dislike the term "voice actor" so much? "Not that there's anything wrong with it..." The primary title of that article is "voice acting", not "voice artistry". Personally, I'd consider people like Bobby McFerrin or Mike Patton to be vocal artists, if anything. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than aware that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, I was merely pointing it out. As for reliable sources, a quick search brings articles like this, this, this and this, so clearly they are interchangable terms. And I dislike the term voice actor for the reason I have already stated: I think it is redundant when actor is already used, certainly in articles like this, where the bulk of the actor's work is live-action. Gran² 20:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to request a WP:third opinion? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as this is such a minor, insignificant issue, I'd rather not waste anybody's time. As the article already opens with "is an American film, television and stage actor", I'll settle for moving the word voice into there, purely to remove the redundancy of saying he is three types of actor, and then separately he's also a fourth type of actor. This makes more logical sense to me. Thoughts? Gran² 10:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the proposed wording? Bear in mind that in case of "voice actor", the word "actor" cannot be separated, as it is a whole expression, as opposed to "film actor", "television actor" and "stage actor". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The wording would be "is an American film, stage, television and voice actor". Gran² 15:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

But see... here is the problem, as I already explained in my previous reply: "voice actor" is a whole expression, not a description of a "type of actor". You can be a voice actor on TV, film or even stage (puppet shows). Therefore, it is not redundant to say "film, stage and television actor, and voice actor", since the word "actor" serves two different purposes here: one, as an independent word, and the other as an integral part of an inseparable expression. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, fine, I disagree that voice actor is anything like an "inseparable expression" but whatever, I'm really past caring. Gran² 20:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Seinfeld article.

I give up. You win hands down on this. My edits is nothing but a joke. If you care to keep the Seinfeld the way it is, then get it protected by all means. I want to keep working on it but somehow it's like I don't exist anymore. I'm now worried if this is the thanks I get, then what's point on working on it anymore? Not exactly happy thoughts but that's what I'm feeling right now. If you persist I shouldn't be working on Seinfeld if the page doesn't need change anymore than I accept. If your true to your word on what I should do than I promise I'll never work on the Seinfeld article again. I hope you understand the way it is right now. It's now truly your article from now on.

Sorry but I'm now having second thoughts since this point any idea I have is totally rejected outright because that could vandalize the article you so want to protect that it stops dead in its tracks. Well if that's how you want it, I won't object.

Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright now, no reason to get caught in self-pity as Wikipedia is a collaborative project. No one WP:owns any article, and I'm no exception – and neither are you. Your latest edit summaries appeared to be a little overly judgmental, hence my edit summary on reverting those contributions. Wikipedia actually states that "[i]f you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Maybe you should re-read WP:The five pillars of Wikipedia and some relevant policies, if you want my help I'll be more than happy to assist. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So I keep doing things wrong. It's my fault I put favorites over notable episodes. You should show me what I should be doing right. After all, I'm just an amateur editor. Throw in what your idea on what to do on the Seinfeld article and maybe I'll forgive you. Besides, it's inappropriate for me to talk to you like that and I'll get banned for every mistake I made. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't believe I actually have to do this... so here goes: are you a troll? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

All your doing is reverting my edits. What more do you want? Stop me editing the article? We could've compromise or something but instead it's like I'm doing something wrong and no-one is pointing me in the right direction. Protect the article or ban me? It already feels like you own Seinfeld and you don't want any change on it at all. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I should apologise for my attitude towards you. I now already found the core problem on the GA review on the Seinfeld talk archives. I won't be working on it for a while as there is two core problems that prevented it to become A-class. So I decided to give you a truce. Maybe next time we should work on it together through the Seinfeld talk page. It's easy for me to lose my cool so this time I'll let it slide. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

One more thing if you want, let's talk on the Seinfeld talk page. I think I am taking up your talk page so let's talk there instead, ok? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

moore

I really don't know. He was added long before I became a coordinator. However it is not surprising as many anti-gun types are part of the project. Probably because of the ridiculous movie he made. Which raises an interesting point: In his movie he falsely portrays the NRA as a racist outgrowth of the Klan, yet becomes a life member himself. I think the difference between him and Tarrantino/Bay is that they actually know how to make good movies, they don't make false documenteries to push their point of view, and they don't try to influence gun legislation.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So... do you reckon it is possible to remove him from the category at all? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be for removing him, but I have been for the NRA expelling him as a member since 2002, and as far as I know that has not happened yet.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So... is solely being a member of the NRA a good enough reason for inclusion in the category? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. moore joined the NRA so that he could be elected its president and make it support gun control. This is like Charlie Sheen announcing that he was becoming Catholic so that she could be elected Pope and make the Church support polygamy. He thought he could get 5 million of his minions join up and elect him president of the Association. Like many other subjects on which he thinks he's an expert, he was wrong, officers are selected by the board of directors to be candidates, not the general membership. The general membership merely votes on who is president, etc. No, it looks like his reason for being in the category is because of his anti-gun film. I'm thinking its not a good enough reason to keep him in the project.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. bodnotbod (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Hearfourme, I just wanted to let you know that you are mentioned by myself in this ANI post. Thanks,  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Seinfeld tags

Please see my explanation on Talk:Seinfeld of the tags I added. Also, please do not remove the tags until such time as you have addressed the underlying problem. Finally, be careful that you aren't trying to exert ownership of the article; just because it's in fairly good condition right now does not mean that it cannot be improved. Yes, improvements need to be discussed, but when issues are tagged in good faith, you need to address those issues, not just remove the tags. Your response in your edit summary showed that either you didn't understand my points, or that you were simply refusing to accept that there may be problems with the article as currently written. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at WP:ANI. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 00:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see anything legitimate, only a sarcastic attack – perhaps you forgot about WP:CIVILITY? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't come anywhere near incivility--ANI regularly allows sarcasm, comedy to prove a point, and even direct accusations of misbehavior that would be a problem elsewhere. You're now edit warring on WP:ANI. Stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, incite masses with easily relatable funny slogans. This is probably the best way to "shush" your opponent while saying nothing constructive. I deleted that travesty per WP:FORUM, not to mention WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL – what exactly does that "comment" contribute to the debate, other than plain insulting editors? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

WQA revert

You restored a comment at WQA [6]. It was not removed absent explaination. The comment was made after the discussion was closed. Further, the editor who removed it went to her talk page andf explained it [7]. It should not have been restored. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Dexter (TV series)

Hello again Hearfourwesique, it's a pleasure to hear from you again but unfortunately we seem to always end up disputing something or other (which I'd like to begin with saying that I'm sorry for, I realize that I can be pushy when I feel that I'm right). But this is a clear done case:

• It was all added by the same user who has made utterly no other edits.
• The sources are not websites under any form of official capacity and are therefore unreliable.
• There are no reliable sources to back up the claims! I've googled and found nothing that is an official site that gives this information, if you can do so, then please add the content back in with those sources.

I'd also like to add that I've done a GA review of the article and am wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look and seeing if you can fix anything (since you're closely involved in Dexter articles). Thanks, Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 20:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I would like to apologize as apparently, I have not looked deeply enough into the subject. I have been getting increasingly upset with the "deletionism" phenomenon and trying to preserve the hard work of editors, some of whom might not be familiarized with all of Wikipedia's rules, which would usually not justify "zapping" their edits.

As for the GA review – I'll look into it soon. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Image

Why would I nominate it for deletion? It's used in another article, so there's no need for that. Since I added the image, WP:NFCC has been tightened and this image, on this page, clearly fails. Per #8 "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The article discusses Moe's voice, not his appearance, so having a picture of Moe does not aid the readers' understanding of anything. Knowing what Moe looks like does not explain anything about Hank Azaria or his portrayal of Moe. Sure, it's nice. And it would be nice to have images of The Blue Raja, Huff and Gargamel and others, but none of them, if omitted would be detrimental to anybody's understanding. It's decoration. And I know it is decoration. Because I put it there as decoration. Gran² 09:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Moe is a much more well known character than The Blue Raja or any of the others (perhaps aside from Apu). Therefore, Hank is pretty much identified with Moe for the average member of the general public, which explains why the illustration is in place. Illustration, not decoration. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Gran2, and I don't see how Hank being identified with Moe justifies including an image of the character, especially when there's no commentary about his appearance in the article. The image of Moe does in no way help illustrate Azaria's work. An audio clip with him voicing the character would be appropriate for that, since that's what the article is talking about. Regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

An audio clip requires a plug-in, and cannot always be played, especially on public computers. Isn't the image a perfect substitute? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No because, as said, the image fails WP:NFCC#8. As the policy states, a fair-use image is unacceptable unless "its omission would be detrimental to [the readers'] understanding". There is nothing in the article about Azaria or Moe which the reader cannot understand unless there is a picture of Moe. The article does not discuss Moe's appearance, the scene or the episode in question in any way which requires an image, nor would such content be relevant, and it thus fails to meet the criteria. Gran² 16:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Seinfeld again

I'm very concerned that you've fallen victim to ownership problems on Seinfeld. You seem to be reverting changes without explanation, and without any justification other than that you prefer the article a certain way. If you are unable to work with others, and accept the fact that everyone is allowed to edit and attempt to improve the article, then you're not going to be able to work on Wikipedia. Try more discussion on the talk pages and less reverting without explanation. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I will elaborate on this later, including diffs and what not, but for now rest assured that I do not have any ownership problems with the article. The opposite is true – I have had an ongoing dispute with Johnnyauau, who not only seems to own the article, but troll it under the guise of concerned editing. Again, I am on a terrible internet connection right now and have limited time, but I will expand on this a little later. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait... I see that you already had that discussion with him (by the way, I was completely unaware of that thread until I started checking that user's contrib history!) here. I'm past trying to discuss (of which I have done my fair share) with that specific editor, as it kinda feels like bashing my head against a brick wall. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case, you need to take the issue to a noticeboard, like dispute resolution Noticeboard or start an RfC, or something. You two can't just keep going back and forth on the article. Eventually, one or both of you will end up blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you really not see the obvious trolling remarks he has made towards me? The latest example: he made one of his usual derogatory "playing dumb" edit summaries here, I tried telling him that but he removed my notice with an equally mocking edit summary. I actually know the series in question, and while some of his edits are constructive, others are harmfully detrimental. I don't wish to get dragged into unnecessary noticeboard threads, is there anything that can be done? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The first edit summary about George's middle name does strike me as immature. I've been working with the user a little bit about this, but more work needs to be done. The second one, though, seems sincere and fair--xe felt like your warning was unnecessarily harsh, and they tried to express that as best as xe knows how. This is not to say that you shouldn't have warned them, but I recommend either using a templated warning or a "nice" hand-written one. As for noticeboards, well, you don't really have a choice. If you can't handle another user, you have to deal with them within the rules; you can't just revert everything they do. I'll try to monitor the situation more closely. Luckily, I have absolutely no interest in the subject itself, as I never liked the show, so I should be able to focus on behavioral issues. If something irks you, tell me, and perhaps I can respond on your behalf (since clearly xe aggravates you, an understandable response). I can't take too extreme action on my own behalf, but perhaps I can figure out where to take the issue. Just to be clear, as I do this, your behavior will also be under scrutiny, so do your best to respond politely and actually discussing issues when you can. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As a first note, I have started a section on the article's talk page to include or remove various minor characters. I expect that you and Johnny will discuss the issue there, because the edit warring on the issue has to stop. There is no clear consensus either way (since it's just two of you), so it's time to form one. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

blind reversions

Did you even look at what you reinserted into History of the name Palestine? Wikipedia mirrors are ok sources for you? Zero^talk 12:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No they're not, and this is why I have just removed that source and replaced it with a {{citation needed}} tag, thank you very much for addressing this concern. My problem is that pro-Palestinian editors are trying to conceal the fact that the name "Palestine" has nothing to do with the various Arab peoples who gathered around what is today Israel not too long ago. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the issue. The real issue here is quality of sources. palestinefacts.org is a self-published web site, not a reliable source by WP:RS. And the Seattle Times is a reliable source for news, not for ancient history. Zero^talk 22:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your first: palestinefacts.org is just not reliable, but the Seattle Times is quite renowned for its investigative journalism (it's in the article), and should be acceptable as a source of information (they frequently print science and educational articles). Best, Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 22:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Journalists get no training whatever in anc ient history or languages. They just copied from somewhere, possibly even from Wikipedia. This is a subject for which there are thousands of professional sources available and there is no excuse for us to settle for second best. Zero^talk 22:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's too small to argue with I suppose. More importantly, doesn't that article need a bit of a rewrite? It reads like a timeline of events rather than a history, it should be put into prose. It might be able to have its own article at "Timeline of..." in order to not be removing others' work. Tell me if I'm talking rubbish ;) Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 22:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"Journalists get no training whatever in anc ient [sic] history or languages"... huh? Do you have a reputable source that deducts this for every journalist that works in every newspaper everywhere? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hearfourmewesique Its really beyond imagination, that someone gives himself a right to erase another people contribution, and to decide which newspapers are suitable and which are not. In the same time, the same people do use newspaper articles and self published web sites. For example: ref. number 55 ^ Thomas A. Idniopulos (1998). "Weathered by Miracles: A History of Palestine From Bonaparte and Muhammad Ali to Ben-Gurion and the Mufti". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-08-11. to refer to the History of Palestine in 390 CE, or self published web sites like ref number 49, http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_preface_1.html. The only reason for this censorship attempt seems to be is political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.92.158 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Hi,
I know it's frustrating... but protection is a last resort. It removes an article from being edited in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Typically, we don't protect without several acts of vandalism per day from various unique editors. I've got the page on my watchlist though. - Philippe 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

What's your point?

Yes, the change I made at the Larry David article was "an honest mistake" as you put it. You finished the edit as I intended. What exactly is the point of coming to my talk page to ask that? An honest mistake as opposed to what? NJZombie (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Forgive me for that, but I have a small message on my talk page.--I'm a Graduate! (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Chris

I would like a small explanation: considering this message you posted over 5 months ago to an editor who, as you claim, wrongfully identified your edits as vandalism, explaining the Wikipedia approach fairly coherently, thus demonstrating a decent amount of understanding, how come you did the same exact thing to me and to FollowGuard (talk · contribs), and when I tried the same polite conversation you added insult to injury by calling me a stalker; then, only after being warned by several editors, you retreated by claiming complete lack of knowledge? I am trying really hard to assume good faith here, so a prompt response will be greatly appreciated. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian people

Please be aware that all articles related to the Israel–Palestine conflict, broadly construed, are subject to a "one revert rule". That means an editor may not make more than one revert to an article page in a 24-hour period.

For general information about revert restrictions, please see WP:Edit warring. For more information about the revert restrictions that apply to articles related to the Israel–Palestine conflict, please see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you revert that last edit or you may be blocked for violating the 1RR restriction. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Before we go any further, I advise you to read WP:V (East Jerusalem is in the West Bank? Do you even know where the two are located, geographically?), WP:SYNTH (just because the source says there are Palestinians that live in an area does not make that area a part of the Palestinian territories), WP:UNDUE (there is no place for phrases like "Israeli occupied" in a list of population figures) and also WP:CRYSTAL (the source is talking about East Jerusalem being the capital of the future Palestinian state) – the violation of which one of those do you wish to keep advocating? Keep in mind that it is the opposite of what constitutes constructive editing. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANEW#User:Hearfourmewesique reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, you really need to be more careful with your edits to articles in the I-P topic area. You have broken the WP:1RR restriction at Palestinian people and your edits don't make sense. Surely you know where the Green Line is, that it goes through Jerusalem and that East Jerusalem is regarded as part of the Israeli occupied territories. Someone will probably file an arbitration enforcement request if you keep this up. Take it to the article talk page if you have concerns about the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of One Week for Edit Warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

1RR

Hello. I recommend you look at your edits today. Your first edit is a revert to your favored version from October 3 (with minor changes), and you just made a second revert. Calling the revert "my one revert for the day" is both untrue and, perhaps more importantly, ignores the fact that 1RR is not an entitlement. I recommend you self-revert before you are reported for this 1RR violation. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That is actually your second revert and if you do not self-revert relatively soon (as long as it takes me to write the report) then I will report you. Given you are one day off of a block for edit-warring at the exact same article, I would guess that your next sanction might be considerably harsher. nableezy - 19:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And I am done. Ill give it a bit more time before submitting. nableezy - 19:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#Hearfourmewesique nableezy - 19:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, you will most likely be blocked two weeks per the AE request unless you can show some willingness to go along with the ARBPIA restriction. You seem to think that your definition of 1RR should prevail over the one which is actually used by the community. Admins who work at AE are nearly always in agreement as to whether a 1RR violation has occurred. Please reconsider your position. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I am willing to change my position, but I would really like you and other administrators involved in that report to see that this is a clear case of WP:BAIT – and yes, shame on me for taking it, but there is stuff going on that needs to be examined, such as Nableezy (talk · contribs)'s long series of reports on WP:AE, all about editors that insert material that supports certain views. Of course, there is also Nableezy's conduct on the article in question: I politely requested not to reinsert the contentious material until consensus is reached (isn't this how things are done on Wikipedia?), but Nableezy reverted me and refused to hold the discussion (only dismissed my on the talk page with comments like "nonsense" and "your comments do not merit a response"). There are other editors who need to come under scrutiny as well IMO, such as Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) and Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), among others. Seeming compliance with rules can still be very wrong. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If you will agree to take a break from editing I/P articles for a period of time, say three months, I would support closing the AE with no block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ouch... maybe one month should suffice? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, you've had two run-ins with the 1RR restriction and the enforcement of these 1RRs is very closely watched. If lenience is given in your case then others will be waiting in line. Surely there are other areas you can work on. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Dunno... I was blocked for a week, so now a month long topic ban seems more reasonable than a three month long one, doesn't it? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Two months topic ban could work. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is out of sheer curiosity: is anyone going to examine the other editors I mentioned? This seems like the reasonable thing to do, to assure no one acts out of line (compliance or no compliance) again. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If you see a problem with the other editors, you can file your own complaint at AE, but after breaking the 1RR you're not in a good position. If the dispute on that article doesn't settle down soon, other actions may be taken. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not breaking 1RR anymore, and still trying to establish consensus on the talk page. Could this please remain as is? Feel free to block/topic ban me if I ever violate that again. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you turning down the deal? If so the two-week block seems necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Two week block vs. two month topic ban... what would you do? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I would take the deal. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Then please let me wait until a conclusion is reached here and I'll accept the deal. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No more delays. You have 20 minutes to give your final answer. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a delay; I'm mid-discussion so it would be wrong to let it continue without my input. I accept the deal; I will abstain from edits to I-P related articles for two months time, but that discussion – and that discussion alone – needs to be finished, and I am an integral part of it; excluding me mid-discussion (as the editor who started it) would disrupt its balance. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no deadline. The discussion, or one just like it, will be there when you get back. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your input is no longer welcome (nor was it ever), Shabazz. You have done more than your fair share with the 1RR-aided witch hunt, now you're trying to get me out of that discussion so you and the others can "drown" it with counter statements. No thanks. I'll await Ed Johnston's reply. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I must go and won't have internet access for a while, so please don't misinterpret reply delays as absence of good faith. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My request was for you to say yes or no to the offer. I'm taking this as a 'no', and I will proceed at AE on that basis. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just so we don't have future misunderstandings :p

Best to check my userpage, and more specifically my userboxes. :p I'll admit my reaction's partly because I though I was being called a holocaust denier, which would not be a sensible thing for me to be at all (given that we lost seven family members in haShoah). But apologies for getting like that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Tishrei 5772 17:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Notice

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Palestinian people, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.T. Canens (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Smith Lead

Thanks for your help with the intro. This section is much improved now. I wish I had thought of consolidating the titles that way. Niluop (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The pleasure is all mine. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Listing disputes at 3O

Just FYI, the How to list a dispute section at the 3O project says:

Follow these instructions to make your post:

• Begin a new entry in the Active Disagreements section. Your entry should be at the end of the list if there are other entries, and the first character should be a # symbol to create a numbered list. This preserves the numbering and chronological order of the list.
• Your entry should contain the following:

• a section link to a section on the article's talk page dedicated to the 3O discussion
• a brief neutral description of the dispute – no more than a line or two, and without trying to argue for or against either side
• A five tilde signature (~~~~~) to add the date without your name.

• Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Dexter

Hello, Hearfourmewesique. You have new messages at ItsZippy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1% (South Park)

Thanks for simplifying my text into the clear explanation that it should've been. It's always gratifying to see an editor with good writing/editing skills offer a valuable improvement to my edits, a far cry from what most of the other editors on the South Park articles offer. I've modified the latter passage for consistency, since I think the detail isn't as necessary. Nightscream (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI 2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. nableezy - 19:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that edit-warring to remove comments you disagree with is not a good thing. If you're concerned that you're being personally attacked, bring it up on the appropriate forum or discuss it with an administrator; do not take it into your own hands to censor others. Consider this a warning for edit warring. Also, please revert your removal of the other editor's comments. Thank you, m.o.p 19:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

When someone who's been notified under WP:ARBPIA takes on the role of vigorous partisanship for one side of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it raises the question of whether you can contribute neutrally to developing articles in that area. This is relevant to the question of whether you ought to be topic banned under WP:ARBPIA. Removing other editor's comments is also troublesome. If Israel seems to be taking on the role of an occupier then comparisons of Israel to other occupying nations should not be off the table, within limits. Prunesqualer's rhetoric may be excessive but it's unclear what standards you expect in an ethnic dispute on a talk page. Rely on consensus for what to do; you're slightly too opinionated to be considered neutral. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ed -- an interesting point. Are you suggesting that, say, any editors with half a dozen or more blocks for edits in the conflict area be topic banned? That might well have legs. As to the specifics of removing others' comments, I agree with those who have indicated here that that is not a good thing, and suggest that it should not be done (absent egregious circumstances).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ive restored the affected comments myself as you have not yet edited since the message above. Please do not again remove those comments. Bye. nableezy - 20:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Good for you. I'll see you on ANI, when I feel like wasting my time on making a case against you, since you've obviously mastered the art of WP:Civil POV pushing. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Legality

Fair warning, there have been topic bans handed out for the removal from the lead of articles the line on the illegality of the settlements. If you continue with such edits I will report you. nableezy - 15:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP/N

I have asked for outside intervention to deal with your repeated BLP violations at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Palestinian_people nableezy - 17:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

HOUNDing and general tendentiousness

Your increasingly annoying habit of hounding my contributions to revert edits that I have made has gone past annoying into disruptive. This edit is just the latest in a string of tendentious edits. Several reliable sources have been provided that call Nazareth a Palestinian city, to hound my contributions to dishonestly claim that no such sources have been provided is disruptive. Kindly refrain from tendentiously and disruptively hounding my edits. I dont follow you around, and unless you would like me to take a greater interest in you and what you edit kindly do not do that to me. nableezy - 19:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I was not hounding you, but your comment here – "unless you would like me to take a greater interest in you and what you edit" – is a direct threat on your end to hound and harass me. I am giving you a one and only shot at retracting it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, and further, if you do not retract your outrageous attack that I attempted to use a source that advocates the destruction of all Jews I will be taking you to AE. nableezy - 14:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You called for the reinsertion of this source, which is basically a secondary covering of Yusuf al-Qaradawi's work. Mr. Qaradawi is quoted here to have said in a public convention: "Oh Allah, Take This Oppressive, Jewish, Zionist Band Of People; Oh Allah, Do Not Spare A Single One Of Them; Oh Allah, Count Their Numbers, And Kill Them, Down To The Very Last One." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That is one lie after another. See my response on the talk page, most importantly the sentence Stop lying about what I did, stop lying about the source, and stop insinuating what you are so despicably trying to hint at. nableezy - 23:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Nazareth

Hearfourmewesique, at the time you made this revert at Nazareth were you aware that an RfC was in progress at Talk:Nazareth on that very item (Palestinian people versus Israeli Arabs)? EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I was not aware, I reverted it since it seemed like "that camp vs. the other camp" in the edit history and I firmly believe that the term Palestinians in this context is highly POV and is a part of an ongoing propaganda war to delegitimize Israel as a concept on Wikipedia. I only saw the discussion (and contributed to it) after making the revert, and actually just now noticed the RfC in its heading. My apologies if I unknowingly broke protocol. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

AE

You have been reported to arbitration enforcement, you can see this here. nableezy - 19:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You are topic banned indefinitely from the Arab-Israeli conflict. NW (Talk) 01:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It should take more than one admin to decide, and I already retracted my comment. Moreover, if the complaint is closed without sanctions on my editing priviliges, I am willing to issue a serious apology to Nableezy for the seeming (although unintentional) insinuation. Your reply will be greatly appreciated. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)