User talk:ChakaKong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Disappearance_of_Kimberly_McAndrew[edit]

I am writing an article about the Disappearance_of_Kimberly_McAndrew and I would to have your feedback on this article, I feel it is part of our Canadian history of missing person in Nova Scotia. I would like to keep it on Wikipedia.jbignell (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think the article meets the notability requirements. It's going to boil down to the scope of the reporting of the case. Is/was there significant media coverage? You'll need to provide an indication of importance, meaning you'll need to indicate why the Disappearance of Kimberly McAndrew is important or significant enough to warrant the existence of the article. Just source it as best you can and hope for the best. Best of luck. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 01:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, I have updated the article with some national media links and the fact that this case started the major crimes unit in HRM PD. Lets hope it's enough...jbignell (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC for Technical Ecstasy blockquote[edit]

This is just a notice that I intend to start an RfC over the Technical Ecstasy blockquote dispute. I feel that it's the best way to proceed. I am contacting each involved party as required. Are you willing to participate? I have contacted Pigsonthewing about this possibility asking him if he would want to proceed. He just deleted the comment so I assume he is wants to go there. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: "already done" reply on my talk page. The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is a weaker route than I was going to take but I'm agreeable to that. PS I think it's better to reply at the same place as the message to which you're replying, so it doesn't fragment the conversation and cause out-of-context replies. I will check back for replies to my own messages so I won't miss it. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I jumped the gun, perhaps I should have let you handle it as I'm not overly familiar with the RfC process. At any rate, I'm confident in my argument in regards to the Zoom dispute, so hopefully this will settle it once and for all. ChakaKongtalk 17:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I informed pigsonthewing of the RfC and he promptly reverted it as "bollocks". Precisely as I expected. ChakaKongtalk 17:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You didn't jump the gun. If anything, it was going to be me. This will be my first real dispute resolution too (in almost 10 years of being an editor!) so I'm viewing it as an opportunity to learn about the process. One last thing, I would again caution about wording and tone. Editors will look at the way we've handled (or mishandled) being WP:CIVIL. On his talk page informing Pigsonthewing about the Noticeboard thread, just "An RfC has been initiated to settle the matter" would have sufficed. The extra part served no beneficial purpose and can only be viewed as being inflammatory. I agree a dispute can be frustrating and it's sometimes a tightrope walk to explain your frustrations in a way that's level-headed but it's beneficial to all if we stick to calm, non-emotional debate. It would be doubly unfortunate if sanctions end up being made due to non-content issues. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I am satisfied that that reference found at Noticeboard thread helps given a specific magazine and article title for the dispute blockquote and can be used to provided a reasonable accurate reference. I am not satisfied over Pigsonthewing's behavior during this long process. And I intend to file another RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. That requires two editors willing to "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed". The dispute is now over behavior and not the content. Are you willing to be the second person? Jason Quinn (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, just keep me up to date. Thanks. ChakaKongtalk 20:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Changing birthplace categories without a source[edit]

Hi ChakaKong. I just wanted to talk to you something, A user has continue changing birthplace category locations to a hockey player raised in another city. So, User:Marc87 has continue changing birthplace categories to raised in another city for a different Category:People from XXXX locations without a source and an explanation since Thursay or Friday. If a hockey player was born in the primary birthplace it should add the Category:People from XXXX not changing a different category by raised in another city. I am double categorize on almost all of the categories for now. Since, you remove unsource notability on the article Jason Spezza. User:Marc87 did continue editing by unsourced info and did not follow guidelines. Here what you are going to do go to User contributions and type the username that's User:Marc87 and then talke a look on almost all of the hockey players articles that is made by editing. After you review on all of the articles on the names of hockey players made unsource notability. Go talk to User:Marc87 at at the user's talk page and warn User:Marc87 never changed unsourced notability and never change the birthplace categories for the Category:People from XXXX to raised in another city by changing a different Category:People from XXXX without an explanation. Anyway, thank you for telling you via message. I know I'm not an administrator. So if User:Marc87 has continue editing unsourced notability, I will leave you a message again ASAP. GRemenber got to User contributions type User:Marc87 and see Marc87's contrbutions and review the former edits that was made by adding unsourced info and changing birthplace categories by raised in another city and warn User:Marc87 never do it again. Thanks and cheers. Steam5 (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, but you are also free to discuss this with User:Marc87 yourself. You can warn him yourself if he's in violation of anything. But thanks for letting me know about your concerns, I'll take a look at his edits when I get a chance. ChakaKongtalk 23:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, but I can't talk to User:Marc87 myself, but the user is Chinese and User:Marc87 speaks Chinese did not understand English when I talk to him and he won't understand. But I am still not an administrator. So thanks for the reply. Steam5 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Any user can issue warnings to an editor who is violating a guideline. You don't have to be an admin. Cheers. ChakaKongtalk 23:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation format[edit]

I'm sorry but I have never seen anyone remove sourced information because of that format before. Could you please help by explaining which format you want on article talk page. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees[edit]

I think that we should start a discussion on this. I don't know how to do that.Hoops gza (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's something that should be addressed. I initiated a discussion here. Feel free to comment. Cheers! ChakaKongLet's talk about it 03:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

IGotProof[edit]

I think your templating of IGotProof might be a touch harsh – his additions were factually correct, and infobox material doesn't necessarily need sourcing if it's not remotely contentious, which this isn't. You even said his edits were in good faith in your edit summary. Nothing else in the infobox at Let There Be Rock is sourced, after all. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well as I said, nothing in the infobox is sourced, so why haven't you removed it, along with everything else in the article that's unsourced, as per your reasoning for removing the singles? None of the track listing is sourced, yet you left it there. Any perusal of Discogs or something will prove the single releases if pictures of the actual singles (at the individual pages) is for some reason not good enough for someone. Why did this information require verification? Information which needs sourcing is information "challenged or likely to be challenged" – this hardly applies to the single releases from an album. Do you disagree with what he added, do you have alternative information? Or did you just remove it simply because he had just added it and it had no source? Why not just add a "citation needed" tag? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I thought you probably wouldn't. I just wanted to get down to whether you reverted because you had an issue with the content of his edit, i.e. you were actually challenging the information like an editor did at Motherlode (James Brown album), or whether you just had an issue with that editor. I knew the answer anyway. Not everything a troublesome editor does necessarily needs reverting. This discussion is, I feel, more constructive than that particular revert. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
There was no point in discussing it on the talk page because I was sure you weren't interested in the content of the edit, which you confirmed. Nothing ineffectual or irrelevant about it, since you confirmed exactly what I suspected. That was the whole point of my coming here, mate. No dispute either, in that respect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Closing a review[edit]

Hi Chaka. It's about a recently finished review. This is the one I reviewed, but somehow it won't disappear from the list of nominations. Any solution?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not an area I'm knowledgable in. You can most likely find assistance here. Good luck. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 22:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Use Your Illusion I[edit]

Hello there mate. Didn't want to start an edit war, so I'd like to discuss. Adler was addicted to cocaine as well as heroin. Do you agree with this? This is also well-documented.

Can you provide a reliable source for the cocaine claim? All sources I've read agree that he was fired for heroin addiction. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 01:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It's in Adler's book, I'm sure it's also in Slash and Duff's books. It's referenced here and here. I could get plenty of other references, but it's common knowledge that Adler was addicted to both cocaine and heroin. In fact, taking a speedball (a mix of cocaine and heroin) is what caused his stroke. Even if the references you're basing your edit on say heroin, he was addicted to cocaine as well. Just because the reference says heroin, doesn't make it true. That's simply the words of the author. The truth, again, is that he was addicted to cocaine and heroin. So it is because of those problems that he was fired. Akdrummer75 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion is not the truth. The truth is what the sources can confirm. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 03:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Symptom Of The Universe[edit]

Hi, recently you reverted my addition of progressive rock to Symptom of the Universe by Black Sabbath. You said "The source cited states "That (this song) has been described as the first progressive metal song"; this is simply not enough for a genre addition." Iommi then goes on to agree with that claim. This isn't just an Allmusic reviewer saying it, it is the man himself, the creator of the song. If this isn't reliable, i don't know what is. Y45ed (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

May I also add, you told me that progressive metal emerged in the 80's, so cannot apply to a 1975 release. Why does this rule suddenly change when you're using it with another genre that also emerged in the 80s here ?

Klaatu[edit]

Hi. On the Klaatu song Silly Boys, you changed the infobox genre Psychedelic rock into Progressive rock. I reverted your edit, and you, on reverting mine, said that I needed a source, even while you were not sourcing your addition of Progressive rock. Now I know you're going to defend yourself by saying that progressive rock should be the only genre because the song's album only lists that, but you cannot use another Wikipedia page as a source. And besides that, the only reason all the Klaatu albums are simply classified "Progressive rock" is because they are generally a prog band, even though albums like Sir Army Suit come nothing close. Y45ed (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Rogers Centre[edit]

Hi there, I see you reverted the edit of a well-warned user who removed part of the hatnote for Rogers Centre. I must say (reluctantly) that I agree with the edit they made. I recently made a similar edit to the Rogers Centre hatnote. Many hatnotes are way too long, and I'm not sure how anyone could confuse "Rogers Centre" with "Rogers Arena" (or Rogers Vacuum Tube Company). The hatnote principle of less is more seems a good one. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Richard Apple (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Viewers could quite easily confuse "Rogers Centre" with "Rogers Arena" IMO, and I saw nothing wrong with preventing that from happening. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 17:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment[edit]

As an active member of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, you should be aware that there has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment concerning how NHOCKEY will be interpreted. Dolovis (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...[edit]

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Track list numbering[edit]

There is currently a Rfc and discussion at Template talk:Track listing#RfC regarding track listings, about how the songs in a track listing should be numbered. The result could have repercussions for every article of albums originally released in vinyl. If you are interested, please join in the discussion there. Lewismaster (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)