User talk:Timmeh

Welcome to my talk page! I've decided that I'm going to reply on my talk page to keep conversations together and so that other editors can review them when needed. So, if you leave a message here, I will reply here. You are reminded to be civil and to make no personal attacks toward any editor. It is also important to remember these steps when leaving a message: • Use a ==descriptive heading== • Use [[wikilinks]] when mentioning users and pages • Sign your post with four tildes ~~~~ If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia or frequently asked questions. Click here to leave me a message

Help needed (again) user is displaying ownership of articles and has made a threat

I am contacting you again because since the last time I left a message User:Jerzeykydd has restarted his edit warring because of his personal feelings of ownership ("I made every presidential election article that way I am planning on keeping it that way" part of message left on my talk page) related to a number of election articles. The user has also engaged in threatening behavior on my talk page User talk:Highground79 ("don't push it or I'll get pissed off") (comment came as part of message left on my talk page on 00:14, 1 July 2009). Since I have been on wikipedia only briefly the last few days I hadn't paid attention to it till now. While I am in now way frightened by the user there threat is not appropriate for wikipedia and I believe someone other then myself needs to make the user aware of this.

The underling issue which started all of this is the user in question and I have a disagreement over how to label parts of a section. The user has had it suggested to them (by you) to start a discussion on the matter but has chosen instead to continue to edit war. the user insists via claims of ownership on labeling the results of presidential election article by state in a manner in which it appears as though equal weight is given to the "by county" results and "by congressional district" results as is given to the "statewide" while in some cases the user seem to accept Result (instead of "statewide", but will not accept election result)

My edits to the labels are attempting to distinguish the fact that only the statewide total is the election result (that which electoral votes are awarded for) The county and the congressional district results are a subset of the electorate and are less important (labels I attempted to include (results by congressional districts and results by county) because it doesn't matter who wins the most counties or congressional districts in most states (I'm trying to clarify this) the electoral votes are a all or nothing deal. While this may seem obvious to you wikipedia is used by people all over the world, and the our electoral college system is completely foreign to these users (it is important for the understanding of these users to distinguish the difference between the numbers that matter and the ones that do not). I would be happy to discuss this on the talk pages but the User:Jerzeykydd insists on edit waring and inadvertently is making it harder for users in other countries to understand what is the important (determining #'s) and what is essentially just an interesting fact. I know this is long winded but I wanted to explain what is going on and how it started. Highground79 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Highground. If you're still in a dispute with him, I suggest you copy any discussion to the appropriate election article's talk page, rather than having it in fragments at each of your talk pages. I'm not exactly sure if any article fits into that category. You might try Talk:United States presidential election or just a random state's election article. Or, if you don't mind restarting your discussion, you could start a new one at one of the aforementioned talk pages and notify Jerzeykydd and some other election article frequenters about it; a few examples are: GoodDay, Qqqqqq, and JayJasper. I'll weigh in as well. If you still don't get many comments, which is unlikely, you might want to file a request for comment and see if that gets you any more opinions on the matter. If Jerzeykydd continues to edit war after consensus has been reached against his view, I'd suggest filing a report here. Hope that helps. Good luck resolving the dispute. Timmeh 04:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, about the threat, I wouldn't worry about it. If he makes any more threats, especially if they're more direct and uncivil, let me know. Timmeh 04:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, good catch on the McIlrath uncited revert, but it's not particularly insulting that he would be gay. de Bivort 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

McIlrath himself might disagree. Either way it was vandalism meant to insult him. My comment was definitely not meant as an insult directed at homosexuals, and I apologize if it came off as insulting. Timmeh 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Kentucky Headhunters

I've had a couple problems. The only source I can find to verify that Kenney left is a blurb from Associated Content, which is blacklisted (and I believe user-submitted). I think the fact that Doug Phelps is cited as bass guitarist on their official website is enough to verify that Kenney has left, since I have found no mention of his departure in any reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I made a couple fixes. How would you suggest expanding on their critical reception? Summarizing reviews from a few sources seemed to work for McBride & the Ride. I was thinking something like "Allmusic has given generally favorable reviews to all of the band's albums except for Rave On!! and Stomping Grounds, saying that those albums blah blah blah. Entertainment Weekly, however, said blah blah blah, and Country Standard Time said blah blah blah, but said of Flying Under the Radar that it blah blah blah." Would that work? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep, that sounds fine. Just make sure to keep it as neutral as possible and avoid words like "however" which could introduce bias, especially in this context. Timmeh 20:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Which do you think would be better? One section for all the critical receptions, or just highlighting them in the sections on each album? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I want to say separate them for each album, as that's what I normally do. But there are so many that it may just be more practical to gather them into a critical reception section. That's the option I'm leaning toward right now. What do you think? Timmeh 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Working them into each album's section might be better since it spreads it out more, instead of bunching it up into a huge section of "X said Y, but Z said A". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
          • That's a good point. If we put them all together, it would be hard to make it not read like a list. You can go ahead and work them into the sections. Just be careful not to mention too many reviews for each album. Using this method, you have to be careful not to go into excessive detail. Timmeh 03:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Okay, I think I've got it now. I'm still having trouble finding reviews that describe the specific details of the band's sound — for instance, the specifics of Martin's guitar style. I know that in the liner notes to one album, he states that he always cranks everything to 10, but beyond that I'm not finding anything more specific than "ringing" to describe his style. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
              • It looks OK as it is now. It's no problem if you can't find those specific details; they don't really seem necessary. Timmeh 20:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Okay, anything else you think it needs before passing? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • Just one more thing: Is the table in the members section with all the time periods really needed? I think it may be better to keep it simple and just list current members and former members along with their instruments and years in the band, sort of like how it's arranged here. Timmeh 17:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
                    •  Done Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
                      • I've passed the article. Congratulations and good work. Timmeh 17:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

BFMV

It really doesn't matter, what the sources say, the only changes are to the lead, not the stated genres, BFMV follows the same era of metalcore with thrash metal as does Trivium and Shadows Fall, both articles that have their lead as "heavy metal" band. — GunMetal Angel 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but yes, it does matter what the sources say. One of Wikipedia's core policies is verifiability. If metalcore is supported by more sources, which it currently is (6 to 2), it should be given more weight. Your own opinion has no bearing on content in Wikipedia articles; that includes genres. Timmeh 18:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, the lead should be simplified as "heavy metal" band, there several sources for Trivium and Shadows Fall for their metalcore genres, you're just not getting this are you? • GunMetal Angel 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe having heavy metal in the lead simplifies it. Heavy metal and metalcore are different genres. Also, supporting a point of view by claiming other articles have the lead a that way is not a good argument to be putting forward. If you wish to discuss this further, please bring it up on the Bullet for My Valentine talk page. If not, I'll reinsert metalcore into the lead. As I stated earlier, that is the genre referred to by most sources when describing the band. Thank you. Timmeh 19:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

GAN notey

Just to tell you that Intimacy is at GAN. Because you've proven to be a reliable and insanely helpful reviewer in the past, I was wondering whether you'd like to do this one? I won't be offended if you turn it down but I would appreciate it greatly if you could find time to do this. Thanks in advance :)  GARDEN  says no to drama 13:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be happy to review it. But I'm afraid it'll probably have to wait until Monday when I have more time. Timmeh 16:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No rush. A few pointers about it: 1. It won no awards and sales haven't been given out by the band, 2. There were few promo things, let alone promotional tours, as it was rush-released, 3. Few recording interviews (1 in Scotland, 1 in Canada, 1 in Australia, 1 in Rolling Stone) and no print media whatsoever. It might be wise to treat it as a mixtape more than an album in its details (like Piracy Funds Terrorism maybe) cos the whole point was to sidestep critics, commercialism, and biopics like those on A Weekend in the City (which I'm doing atm and it's got more coverage than the Bible). Having said all this, I'll try my best to flesh anything out before Monday. Rafablu88 06:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Presidential election of 2008

Hello. I added information about the size of the popular vote victory to this article, and explained the reasoning here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2008&action=edit&section=12 . If it is significant to note that the victory was 'narrow', then it is equally significant to point out the size of the victory (so the reader can decide). Since 'narrowly' can easily be construed to represent a specific point of view, the wiki NPOV guidelines would seem to support including an objective, empirical piece of sourced evidence that by definitional MUST be NPOV.

This was NOT resolved via 'consensus', and wikipedia rules themselves state that a consensus decision does NOT mean that the decision is 'forever'. The size of the electoral victory is sourced, is a fact, and is every bit as relevant as the subjective adjuective 'narrow'. Please do NOT revert this edit. If you believe you have justification for doing so, please do so on the talk page. Unilateral removals of this relevant and NPOV information will be reverted

Thanks,

138.210.160.198 (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I reverted your edit before seeing this message. As for your reverting, you're the one making the change. Therefore, it is your job to bring up the issue on the talk page. I suggest you take a look at the consensus policy and then look at the previous discussion. Consensus isn't forever, but to change it a new consensus must be formed. Please read over the overly long discussion that occurred back in January before trying to argue for the inclusion of the 3 million vote fact. The wording as it currently appears is neutral because by every legitimate measure, the election victory was narrow. If you wish to discuss this further, please bring it up keep the discussion at the article's talk page. Timmeh 16:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. I re-added the reference. I looked over the supposed consensus, and it certainly was not clear. I made an edit, and you specifically reverted a sourced, empirical number that (while you may disagree with it) is objective and relevant. We can discuss it in the discussion page, but while we are discussing it, I would ask you to please leave the addition alone. It harms nothing, it is sourced, and it is objective. It adds less than 1/10th of to the length of the article so it does not lengthen it unnecessarily. SO while we are talking, I would ask that you respect the wiki guidelines about 'violates consensus' NOT being a legitimate reason to revert an edit.

Thanks,

138.210.160.198 (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is there a special page where I can report you for being an a$$wipe?

Thanks,

138.210.160.195 (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal

As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX ₪ 04:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)