User talk:Fritz Saalfeld/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Fritz Saalfeld/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Infrogmation 19:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Garden State

Sorry. Just been busy and obviouslly forgot to remove the notice. Once I get some free time, i'll do some major edits to it. Thanks anyway.--Matt von Furrie 04:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Tracklisting

Thanks for notifying me of the revert, I'm bringing up this issue to the WikiProject talk page so it'll be discussed further. --Andylkl ^(talk) June 28, 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Gorillaz albums infoboxes

I am beginning to agree with you that overfilling the Infoboxes with Catalog numbers and release dates is perhaps overwhelming to the casual reader. I realize this is a complete reversal of what my position was. In any case, perhaps we can come to an agreement as which release date to consider as first. As for the catalog numbers, I don't know what to do in that regard. It's obvious there needs to be some heavy trimming, but I am unclear how to proceed. My first thought is to simply include the British release dates and catalog numbers for the albums since the primary members are British. Let me know what you think and we can work from there. Thanks, Cbing01 1 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment about the Let It Be... Naked release box. I'm glad we could come to an agreement, and look forward to working with you again in the future. Thanks for starting the discussion on this topic. Thanks, Cbing01 2 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)

The changes you made on "19-2000" look pretty cool. I guess I just got tired of looking at those cluttered Infoboxes. Anyway, I like the revision, the catalog numbers do look better before the particular formats track listing. Thanks also for helping remove that Rate Your Music review from the articles. I do not understand why that particular editor continues to revert edits to remove the non-prof reviews. Anyway, thanks for getting involved. Cbing01 3 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

Letitia Lerner!?!?

Who is this Letitia Lerner? When did she join the Superman cast of characters that have the initials, L.L.? Michael 17:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

That was Quick!!

Hi, Fritz! Michael Reiter here. Listen, That was Quick! Thanks for telling me. Ciao! Michael 18:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Re:Black Cat image

Why did you tag Image:Black Cat.jpg with a no source tag? It says in the describtion that it's the cover of the Marvel Must Haves: Spider-Man/Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do #1-3 and has a proper fair use tag. I don't this Wiki requires anything else.

You need to say where you got the scan, like crediting the photographer who photographs a famous-yet-copyrighted picture (and subst {{Marvel-Comics-trademark-copyright}} while you're at it. - SoM 12:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought (and still think) giving the issue the image is taken from and the artist would be enough... (isn't listing the artist the same as crediting a photographer?!)

No, because if you upload a picture of the Mona Lisa, you're not going to credit the photog and not Leonardo DiVinci. I'm trying to get everyone to play safe on these things. BSTS.

And I checked - the Newsarama copy of that image doesn't match the copy you've uploaded (it being 458×686px @ 488.26kB, whereas the copy you uploaded is 400×595 @ 87.18kB). Don't add a source just to fob me off. - SoM 14:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Forgot about this. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Rules_of_thumb - SoM 13:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding I"s

"cur) (last) 16:58, 11 September 2005 Fritz Saalfeld m (revert double listing of character names) "

No, we add the "double listing" to show how the names are ordered in Japan. WhisperToMe 14:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It's done in almost every single Japanese name article... Junichiro Koizumi, and the list could go on and on. A formal vote on how to deal with the Japanese name issue did not reach consensus, but for now the "repeating" name is the de facto standard. WhisperToMe 15:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Comics collaboration

Hi. Forgive the cut and paste briskness of this message, but you voted at the Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight for Comics, which has now become the current collaboration. Please help to improve it in any way you can. First up we have discovered it might be best to discuss improvements on the talk page, and perhaps create a To-do list. Anyway, thanks for your help. Steve block talk 19:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Apple Mighty Mouse

Good work on that image of the Apple Mighty Mouse. It looks good while still being pd. --huwr 00:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Its a lovely picture, I like the red background, works very well. You might consider uploading it to Wikimedia Commons so it can be used by other language projects. Justinc 01:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

New Rads song articles

Sure. M.C. Brown Shoes 22:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Re : Articles for deletion/List of music videos by year

Hi Fritz Saalfeld,

These articles are to be nominated seperate from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos by year. You may nominate the articles as a single VFD group, but each of these articles must be tagged with the VFD tag. Hope that answers your question.

And my apologies for the late reply, cos' I was on vacation. If you have any questions, let me know! :)

- Greetings!, Mailer Diablo 15:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Quote

I don't know, having "to hide his" as a non-quoted thing just feels wrong. Also who says he was wearing his hat in the video to hide his lack of enthusiasm? wasn't he referring to live performances? and he wore the hat basically everywhere before that... M.C. Brown Shoes 13:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

new infomovie box

HI there. I see they've fixed infomovie box so I've been changing Infomovie box 2 and 3 pages to just be the first one. I see you've volunteered to help... thanks for your assistance. Steve-O 13:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Reunion

I'm still not getting it to work - it was working the way I had it. I think it may have something to do with to many "|'s " in your external link (wiki might be interpreting to be something else). Drdr1989 18:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem... your recent edit worked and it looks good now. Drdr1989 21:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben Garmisa's Pictures

I don't know how many times I can say this. I only uploaded photos by request to specific band pages. As you can see at my site, I have shot countless other bands and did not upload those photos. I could care less if they stay on the band's wiki entry, but you have no right to suggest them for deletion, as I can upload whatever pictures I want.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bgarmisa (talk • contribs) .

minutes and seconds

I am delighted that you are updating the format to mm:ss. I did not like the previous abbreviation of 'sec'. I see now that it has been discussed at some length and I like the outcome.

I don't like the use of ?? for unknown or null values. Unfortunately it is common in Wikipedia articles. But that is a different matter. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 23:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to add my appreciation for this monstrous (and monotonous) task you've undertaken. The old format, complete with silly links to minute and second is just not right. So, thank you, and here is a flower :) Qirex 14:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks (both for the nice words and for the flower). It's good to see the work is noticed and appreciated. --Fritz S. 16:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

reply

Hi, I implemented the ability to get more than 5000 this morning, that version will be available later today ;) I'll consider some type of way of saving settings for future revisions, thanks Martin 14:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy Crimbo!

Have a Proper and Merry Crimbo. File:Pressie.gif, in fact here is a pressie from the Doctor to you. Ho. Ho. Ho! File:Unclecrimbo.gif Dr. McCrimbo 22:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Joe Madureira

Thanks for the correction. I'm still learning newer things about WP here and there, and I'll incorporate that into my contributions from now on, and I even went back and changed the dates on the Judd Winicik article, which was the last big contribution I made. I have two questions though:

First, why is this? What's wrong with a month or year being linked, if other words in articles are linked too? I don't understand why this is considered a bad thing.

Second, I seem to be having some trouble with a possible vandal on the Union City, New Jersey page, who keeps inserting a non-sourced, irrelevant, and redundant passage that I keep having to remove. The 411 on this matter is on that article's Talk page, under the heading "Geography." (It's the second of only two headings on that page anyway). Can you advise? How can I contact an administrator about speaking to this person or possibly blocking them? Nightscream 21:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I understand this, which is why I wonder why the same does not hold for other linked articles that do not pertain to the article's subject, at least directly. The mention of Wizard magazine, for example, doesn't pertain to it, because clicking on that link only takes you to the article that explains what Wizard is, but not the specfic mention of their ranking of JoeMad. Again, I'm only pointing out what I see as an inconsistency, but I'm not challenging the policy. Personally, I think linking months and years would be no different, but I think I'll drop it for now. :-)

2. He/she doesn't have a user page, which is precisely the problem. Up until recent, he/she was only identified by his IP number. Today I noticed that someone who reinserted the text in question (which may or may not be the same one) has a username, but it's a red link, which means he/she isn't registered. I brought this up on the Discussion page for that article, in which I explained my arguments in detail with another user who tried to justify the vandal's activity. Any ideas? Do you know how I can contact an Admin? Thanks again. :-) Nightscream 23:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks. Nightscream 01:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Awesome infobox!

Thanks a bunch. :D M.C. Brown Shoes 01:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: New Radicals lead

"is" not "are" (also, "was" not "were) correct usuage of collective nouns http://ace.acadiau.ca/english/grammar/s_v.htm

A lot of the articles regarding bands are incorrect, using "are" and "were" RJN 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A band's name acts as one entity, therefore, we use singular. If the sentence were to say, The members of the band "were"... Then that would be correct. Collectively, these members form a band. <---singular This band is called XXXXX. RJN 17:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

For example, "hair" is a collective noun. "My hair is brown" or "my hair was brown" are correct. "My hair are brown" would be incorrect. Sorry, it's hard to explain things online. RJN 17:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The names of bands have nothing to do with it the grammar of the sentence. Just because a band's name has "s" does not mean the sentence have to be plural because it is one band. For example, five members make up Good Charlotte, an American pop-punk band. <---singular because it is a band, not more than one. This would be the same if they were to have "s" at the end of their name because it would still be one band, correct? New Radicals is one band is it not? Collectivelly referred to as "the band." <---singular RJN 18:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A "band" is singular. Within this band, there are X amount of members. RJN 18:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of English you were taught, but this is not how we use it in the United States. (I am a speaker of American English by the way.) I had a conversation with a liguistics instructor yesterday from the university and he confirmed to me that this is correct. He also explained to me that a lot of people (even native speakers) do not know how to use collective nouns correctly and/or not really aware how to use it. I now understand that a lot of people get confused with this and it is okay. Maybe you should consult with your English instructor at where you study or a native speaker who is advanced with linguistics.

The name of a band does not denote its plurality and therefore does not effect the style/construction/grammar of the sentence. Yes, if the name of the band is "The Muppets" then "The Muppets is happy." If it is not a band, then "The muppets are happy." It does not matter what the name of the band is, the subject of this is singular. The name of the band is used collectively and this is where collective noun steps in. I am done with this conversation. RJN 17:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you were to read a section under our discussion on my talk page. You would find that there are differences between American and British English. I just went and asked a fellow Wikipedian who is a linguistics expert. So yes, in the U.S., what I am using is correct. What you are using is also correct under British English. I did not realized there were differences in usage between the two. Since the New Radicals was an American rock band, we should use American spelling and grammar. RJN 18:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what Angr wrote on my talk page. He said there are differences in usage between American and British English. We are both right. In the U.S., we don't learn British English so I was unaware of this. RJN 18:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We use things differently and the U.S. and you can't say that I am wrong. I just said that you are also right, but in British English. This article is U.S. related so it should be in U.S. spelling and grammar. Please consult with User:Angr if you have futher question with linguistics as he is an expert. RJN 18:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In case you did not read what another user had put on my talk page, I'll copy and pasted it for you.

The thing is, there's an American-British usage difference going on here, which you can read about at American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns. In British English it's correct to say not only "New Radicals are" but also "Aerosmith are". Likewise "The audience are listening" and even "My bank are just awful!". "Liverpool is" and "England is" refer to the places, but "Liverpool are" and "England are" refer to soccer teams. --Angr (t·c) 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I live in the U.S., so what I am using is correct by American English standards—so respect that. So yes, in the U.S., we say "My bank is," "The audience is," etc. I understand that you don't agree with this because you were taught British English, but this is not what we use in the U.S. RJN 18:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, yes, using "New Radicals were" is correct in British English but is not in American English because in American English, it is singular because it is a collective noun. Again, the name of the band is not plural because they have "S"—it's just a name and names do not follow how the sentence will be constructed. Why don't you discuss this with Angr—someone who is more of an expert than I am. Please discuss it with him. RJN 18:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Collective nouns are used differently in the U.S. I have talked to many people about this because you are so penchant for changing it to the British version since this article is about an American group—therefore we should use American grammar and spelling. I, however, won't change British bands articles. RJN 18:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"New York Yankees are" and "New York Yankees is" are both correct. The latter is correct in American English. RJN 19:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This is really not worth edit warring over. I haven't even looked at the article to see which version is there at the moment, but my advice to both of you is just leave it how it is. --Angr (t·c) 19:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You just agreed that "New York Yankees is" is also correct and now you call my changes "strange"? I told you many times that there are differences in usage between American and British English. Yes, your usage is also correct. You see it as strange because it is only used in the U.S. It is okay if you think it is strange but that is the rule of American English. I think British English is strange as well. It is okay for you not to accept the American English usage. Sometimes, rules are strange and does not seem correct, but this is what most Americans use over here. RJN 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well please wait while I get in touch with a professional American copyeditor who is a journalist. You have no idea that the concept of collective noun is very tricky and confusing (even most native speakers don't know how to use it correctly). Here is another shot at explaining. You can replace "New York Yankees" with "the team." Now using "the team," is that singular or plural? Or do you argue that "New York Yankees" transfer over to "the teams" or "the team are". RJN 20:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I said it over many times that yes, what you are using is correct in British English, but we have differences here in the U.S. that you were never introduce to it because you are not an American. For example, in British English, this sentence is correct, "I went to hospital." In the U.S., we say, "I went to the hospital." Is this strange to you? Well the British version is strange to me. In the U.S., all of us say "We are going to the hospital." not "We are going to hospital." RJN 20:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I said they are singular because "New Radicals" is one collective entity is it not? Just like "New York Yankees" is one collective entity. That is why this is very tricky. The name of a band or a team is a collective entity. I also changed back to "were" on the article for the time being. However, both are correct. "New Radical" or "New Radicals" both are still a single collective entity, regardless if they have "s" in their name or not. Their name can be anything and is not a meaning. RJN 21:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't looked at the article itself (yet), but RJN is correct. In American English, references to a singular representation of a group is generally considered singular. For instance, if I were speaking about my family, I would say "My family is great." I would use the singular verb, even though many individual people make up my family. It's no different when referencing a band's name, since it is composed of several people. I have no idea if Brits do things differently; it's largely immaterial in this instance, since the article is referencing an American band. Articles on American subjects should use American English; similarly, articles on British subjects should use British English, per Wikipedia's policies. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In any case, it's a rather silly dispute, and I agree with Angr that it's not worth edit warring over. We'll have to agree to disagree. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Thank you for your hard work! · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There you have it, a confirmation of usage from an experienced writter/journalist above. Also, I emailed a former English professor of mine yesterday and she confirmed today that it is correct in American English (I even gave her an example of "New Radicals"). I have gone out of my ways to prove to you that my copyedit was correct. Both academians from my university confirmed that the usage is correct and also an experienced writter above. I know rules don't make sense to people at times. Remember, these rules are made by humans—it doesn't have to make sense. Now if you don't mind, I will be copyediting some of the U.S. band-related articles that are grammatically incorrect. I won't mess with non-U.S. articles as I am not familiar with their usage. Just know that because certain band articles are written incorrectly does not mean that they are right. I ran into some U.S. band articles that use "singular," as not all U.S. bands use "were" or "are". Not everyone is able to catch grammar, especially hard ones. Also know that not everyone in the U.S. know how to write correctly (especially on Wikipedia). There are several U.S. articles that use collective nouns correctly (look at Philadelphia Eagles, Chainsaw Kittens, and among many others). Other than that, good luck with your studies in American literature and language! I find it interesting that someone outside of the U.S. is studying American literature since British English and its literature are "standard" outside of the U.S. RJN 23:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I found a sentence on the RCA Records website that you would be interested in. "New Radicals, led by young liability/singer/songwriter/producer Gregg Alexander, is chomping at the bit." Hope this helps. Sorry to bother you with this. http://www.mcarecords.com/ArtistAbout.asp?which=bio&selected=1&aboutid=38819&artistname=New+Radicals&artistid=62 RJN 06:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, dropping "the" would be correct for "New Radicals was". If it bothers you that much, feel free to change it back to "The New Radicals were" and I won't change it again. I am sure it must be bothering you a whole lot as I noticed you have been the major contributor to this article (good job!). I am fascinated by German culture and language as well. I took a year of German when I was in secondary school and wanted to make more but I was criticised for wanting to learn German and so I stopped. I am sure it wasn't that hard for you to learn English since it's also a Germanic language (well not all the way Germanic). English is hard to learn, even for people here in the U.S. (too many rules—some are quite tricky and doesn't make sense). I hope we didn't get off to a bad start because of that whole debate above as I am also a fan of New Radicals. I also feel bad for trying to force the usage of American English into articles since British English are more standardize worldwide. I apologize if I have offended you. RJN 21:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

IPA

I don't care what the alleged "standard" for wikipedia is, that IPA gibberish is useless to the average reader. I shouldn't have to learn a new language construct just to be able to provide English-speaking readers with a usable pronunciation guide and to satisfy the pretentious standards some Ph.D. in linguistics supposedly set up in this so-called enyclopedia. If you want to insert your IPA stuff, go ahead, but DO NOT DELETE my user-friendly English pronunciations in the process. Ya dig? >:( Wahkeenah 11:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Germany is being replaced by a category

Hello! You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Germany page as living in or being associated with Germany. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, or one of the Bundesland-based subcategories, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Germany for instructions. --Angr (tɔk) 15:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Lindsay Lohan/archive2

I have to say, I've reviewed the suggestions that "year in x" not be piped, and I vehemently disagree. As I note on the talk page, "[s]ee Lindsay Lohan for a good example of why piping is a good thing (a simple [[2003 in film]] in line would create clunky, hard-to-follow writing—better to use no links at all)." Comment? Radio Kirk talk to me 22:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, when these are piped they are "easter egg links", links you have hover over to see where they actually lead, and I find that very unhandy. Also, when they're used in a full date (as they are in the Lohan article) the date formating preferences won't work. It is very common to put these in parenthesis (as in "In 2004 (see 2004 in music), Lohan released [...]") although I find that usually there isn't much relevant information on the "year in x" articles anyway, and personally just don't link them at all. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do. As far as relevant information on the pages, I would argue that anyone following the link wants some information, comprehensive or otherwise; a good excuse for the article's maintainers to make them more comprehensive. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 23:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Quick note on the comma between dates, if I may: Wikipedia now defaults to Euro style, which does not use a comma ("23 January 2006 is today's date."). In American style, two commas are used because the year is a parenthetical phrase ("January 23, 2006, is today's date."). The same rule applies to cities and states, states and countries, and so on ("JFK was shot in Dallas, Texas, in 1963."). Of course, some people say that looks clunky, so almost no one does it correctly any more... ;) Radio Kirk talk to me 18:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ALRIGHT ALREADY!!

I'm sorry fritz. I just got ahead of myself but i wanna know, What licence can I use for my Gorillaz pics? I keep trying to find the right licence but what?? (PS I won't ruin your pics)

(Micoolio101 12:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)micoolio101Micoolio101 12:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

Fair use image galleries

I took the liberty of turning your gallery of fair use images at User:Fritz Saalfeld/images into a list of links to the images instead. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow fair use images to be displayed on userpages, and sub-pages thereof. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy. --Sherool (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

New Radicals

I've left an evaluation at PR (looks good!), but I didn't do anything to the ongoing status page -- I'm not sure how I want to do that, and will probably change the format soon. Tuf-Kat 17:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

New-radicals.com

Hey Fritz, can we have new-radicals.com taken off the spam list? I want to link to it as a discography page as I feel it's a very well-compiled source of information that would be a great external link, despite its dubious origin. M.C. Brown Shoes 03:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan Moore

Alan Moore has been selected as the comics collab of the month. Please stop by and see what you can contribute! ike9898 02:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim Mahfood

Can you please post the notability claim on the talk page? I admit I know little about this fellow, or comics in general, but the {{notbility}} tag was on for a while. If you could post some explanation of his notability in the section on the talk page, then there will be both a record, and an area for discussion should anyone disagree. Thank you. -- Avi 15:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Alex Proyas Videos Entry

Hello. I'm sorry if I may have replaced an error you have already corrected. I received that bit of information on Alex's IMDB page. Again, I apologize if it is incorrect. Artemisboy 16:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Mother single

So what do we do now? Add Mother to the discography? Reinstate the seperate page? M.C. Brown Shoes 08:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but can't we keep "Why MCA would even consider the notion of a third single given that the band only begrudgingly released a second is unknown"? M.C. Brown Shoes 19:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

Thank you very much for your help with this article. I've nominated it as a FAC and would appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katie Holmes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

apnet

the site is the number one site for punk related news. I don't understand how it's not notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Myxomatosis (talk • contribs)

Gallery on frog

Hi Fritz,

Thanks for the suggestion of a gallery. To explain why your change was initially reverted: we had originally discussed using the <gallery> pragma, but then found that it produces severe rendering problems on some screen resolutions when other pictures or taxoboxes are near it. This is why we sought an alternative solution, more unusual at that. However, since we have expanded the page so much recently, it does not now seem to be a problem, so we gratefully accept your suggestion with apologies for the reversion.

MfG,

Samsara _contrib ^talk 12:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

FMP

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikipedia:Featured Music Project by signing up on the status page. What you'd do is sign up for one (or more) of eight categories, such as the discography or lead section. No more than once a month, you'd be given an article which is getting close to being ready for WP:FAC, and is only deficient in a few categories. You'd do what you can in your section (and, of course, anything else you like). If a couple of people specialize in each category, we should be able to take some concrete steps towards improvement on a wide range of articles. In addition, you can sign up as a "shepherd" to take articles that meet all the criteria through a peer review and (hopefully) successful candidacy. Tuf-Kat 04:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Joe Madureira

Fine by me. Sorry if I misinterpreted the attribution of that tag. Incidentally, I fixed that sentence for punctuation and syntax. :-) Nightscream 11:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links

Since you have previously taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. Thanks. bobblewik 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of Books of Magick: Life During Wartime

I'd just like to thank you for your critical analysis of this article. I've been busy for the past week, but I've now made changes to that article based on what you wrote.

Thanks again. :-) (Stephen Day 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC))

you're fast!

Wow you're fast! Good on you. Yeah it was pourely mechanical mistake, fixed. Herostratus 17:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Spymate

IMDB made a mistake about Spymate. It was released, this weekend, in Canada. It will be out on video in the US in April [1]. However, the filmography is the same format (including the year links and the newest films at the top) as it is in the featured article Lindsay Lohan, so the format for the filmography is appropriate. Random links, no, but there's no problem with linking to interviews, they are first hand sources (see the interviews in the featured article Julia Stiles).JackO'Lantern 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that you did keep some of my edits. But just to explain:

Birth date is usually mentioned only once, and in the header, not the early life text.
"Just" seven months old is sort of POV
I sourced the New York birth place because there are a lot of web sites that incorrectly contradict it (IMDB), so it's good to show where we got our info from there
And the rest (filmography format, interviews) I explained above.

JackO'Lantern 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a source for Spymate [2]. I wouldn't trust the IMDB for anything. They're wrong more often then they are right.

ok, as for the others:

I put in the Eric/Julia reference at the top.
Please check the featured articles in the media section [[3]], none have the birth date listed twice (it's always in the header but not under early life).
"Selected" is just a choice of words, I'll make it a full filmography but in the same format as Linsday Lohan or Julia Stiles (i.e. dark shading in header, most recent at the top).
I don't see how interviews are less relevant then the sites linked under "Web sites", but I can cut them down.
I've properly formatted the citations (I.e. birth place, etc.) JackO'Lantern 00:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

New Radicals

Just want to give you some props on your work for the New Radicals FAC, I've gone through an FAC for a favourite band myself, I know how harrowing it can be at times, and you're doing a great job addressing the (minor) concerns brought up. Hope it makes it. - dharmabum 10:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)