This page is an archive. Please add new discussion to my active talk page.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kingboyk. 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.
Stephen, I will bow to your wisdom on the Badfinger intro. But I do think Badfinger's high visibility during the early years of power pop, and subsequent influence the band has had in that genre, are noteworthy in the intro. Also, the "cautionary tale" portion strikes me as more POV.-- ZincOrbie18:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Please don't bow to my "wisdom", that truly would be a terrible mistake :-)
I felt that your changes spoilt the fluidity of the intro - it changed from being a fluid, readable and concise intro to something a bit more awkward [1].
In terms of content, I don't think I really erased much other than the reference to power pop (which I think is a bit of a 'made up genre' any way). However I can see that Badfinger are touted as leading exponents of that genre, so I'll try and squeeze a reference back in.
Please think of my edits as an opening offer - feel free to dive in and change what I have written. That's wiki! :-) [Not an issue here, as we can work fine and find something we both like, for sure, but for reference: I generally think one major change or revert per editor is OK and is part of "being bold". If an issue isn't resolved after that it's clear there isn't concensus, and it should be resolved on the talk page or with the help of another editor].
Oh, another question. Shouldn't it be "Badfinger WAS a rock band..." in the singular? I would think a band, group or ensemble is a single entity, unless the name denotes plurality (like The Beatles).
Good question. "Badfinger was" seems criminal to me, because Badfinger were people, in the plural. That said, I see "The KLF was" and "The Who is". I'll have to look into this further - I've studied English teaching so I should know the answer, but don't :-) Cheers! --kingboyk17:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a discretionary plural, so I used my discretion :-) 'Badfinger was' is just ghastly to me, but you are free to change it back as per your discretion :-). I'll continue to look into this to see if there's any style advice available. --kingboyk17:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Just popping in to say something else, and snooping around a bit and saw this... I agree, it's a discretionary plural all right... This is a Commonwealth/American usage difference, I believe. (UK usage is to say "were" for many group nouns that can stand without a preceding "the" 'IBM were happy to bid on the MoD contract' and US usage is to say "was" 'IBM was happy to bid on the MoD contract', as I understand it.) I thought common WP practice was to adhere to the style chosen by the article starter (or person who did the most to take an article from a mere stub to an article significant enough to have more than 2 or 3 usage choices in it)... ++Lar: t/c01:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I did wonder if it was another of those "divided by a common language" things. I (a Brit) would say "IBM were", but I wouldn't go green at "IBM was", since IBM are a corporate entity and (in English law at least) a corporation is legally "a person". Rock groups, on the other hand, I see as a group of individuals; "Badfinger was" sends me a nasty lime colour! ;) Of course I don't rationalise my speech or writing, it comes naturally, but I can see some logic if I try to deconstruct it :P
You're right about Wikipedia convention, although I understand there is an over-riding convention of using local English for 'local' articles (Indian place names and grammar for the Taj Mahal, American for George W Bush, and so on).
I'm not too fussed, though, and ZincOrbie has made a much greater contribution to that article than I have so if he wants to change it I shall bite my tongue. --kingboyk12:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Nod. Put an article on the front and it seems even clearer. ("Badfinger was" seems not quite as bad as "The Beatles was"... and even hardcore US usage freaks probably would never say "The Beatles was a great band" while they would happily say "Badfinger was a great band" (both statements are true IMHO)) As an aside, I actually prefer UK usage, but I'm a bit of an anglophile. ++Lar: t/c15:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize there was (or should it be "were"?) a regional variation on this issue. I am comfortable with "Badfinger were," so no problem. Being an American, I am simply used to seeing the singular when referring to entities, and a group or an ensemble is normally considered an single entity in the states - as opposed to "the people were..."-- ZincOrbie00:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your recent inquiry, I made some changes on Badfinger redirects and articles. For band members, I removed all of the redirects except for Bob Jackson, Joey Molland and Tony Kaye. I created Bob Jackson and Joey Molland articles, and I would appreciate your input on those. Anyway, in my opinion, these three musicians are worthy of articles.-- ZincOrbie18:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Good stuff! I've just had a quick scan and they are impressive articles. I don't know much about these fellows (I only really know of Badfinger because I used to collect Apple Records) but I can see a few things which need copyediting. I'll get to it when I have a moment. --kingboyk17:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the Mike Gibbins merger. I wanted to give the contributors to the "article" time to speak their minds since they spent some time on the categories section. But, really, it was just a news snippet inspired by Gibbins' death last year. ZincOrbie04:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I left the categories in place. The Mike Gibbins article remains in those categories, but when someone clicks on it they get taken to the Badfinger page. Nothing was lost at all :-) --kingboyk15:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC) -- See [2]
Oh cool. I didn't know it could be done that way, which prompted my hesitation. I still have a lot to learn! ZincOrbie19:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't we all? I think life is the wrong way around. By the time we know anything we're too old to use it! :( --kingboyk19:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You didn't ask me
but if I see your candidacy for RfA I will gladly support it. I enjoyed our chance to work together on the Micronations stuff and would cite it as an example of a style of compromise that presages good things. (do we have a loose end there? I'm not sure... those criteria never went much further but we may have done the best we could.) I noticed you asking around so forgive me for butting in to say that, but I wanted to. (no answer required but if you do, here is good) ++Lar: t/c01:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Lar, I really appreciate it. The micronations stuff always involved a risk of ruffling too many feathers so I'm glad something good came of it. Indeed the discussion does seem to have come to a halt (and I've removed the page from my watchlist) but I'm sure the issue will be revisited at some time (!) and I'm happy to leave it to the micronationists for now. --kingboyk12:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stevie!
Hi there, sweet Stevie! Sorry about the couple of days it took me to reply, hun; it has been truly hard for me to get online, and for the next week or so, it may get even harder :( Anyway, baby, I'm so happy that you liked the little Valentine gift. Yes, I showered many people with it ;) but only those who are truly special to me, and you own a very important place among them. Smooch!
Well, on to more serious business; namely, your request for advice regarding your upcoming RfA. Needless to say, I will gladly support you, babe. I've spent the last hour or so reviewing your contribs, and I have an idea of what your own process may bring. Just in case, I'll send you my thought via email; the least I want is to give anybody ideas nor reasons to oppose you. So just check your mail in ten minutes, baby, I'll see you there :) Smoochs and hugs, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 20:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand about the time issues. I've had to cut down on wiki myself also, because of internet access reasons, but it's only temporary. It's been difficult!
P.S. I'll point out that Sharon's email was really just some general advice about the criteria that the stricter voters employ, and that she was more than happy to support me. If that's not a fair summary Sharon, please provide one of your own :-)
I, too, support your RfA. As you noted, I haven't been around wiki that long. But judging from my outside editing experience I'd certainly say you know what you are doing. Go for it.-- ZincOrbie01:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Yay! You have been nominated!
Phaedriel would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Phaedriel to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kingboyk/Archive 3. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
You got one thing slightly wrong, I'm still learning about the internals of Mediawiki and I haven't made any contributions to the official code yet. The work I've done has so far been works in progress on related tasks (such as extensions) which aren't ready for public release and might never be. So, I cannot claim any public good there, but I can claim a much better than average understanding of how the software works and the technical challenges underlying it. Would you like to change it? (I've had a quick scan of WP:GRFA#General_advice_for_nominators and I think we can change things until it goes live on WP:RFA but see next paragraph!)
Unfortunately I have a splitting headache at the moment and I can hardly think straight, so I'll have to hold off until tommorow. I will of course accept but if I dive in now I'll make a pig's ear of it :) --kingboyk15:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm so sorry about your headache, Stevie - I hope you're feeling better by now. A night's rest can do wonders! I've reviewed the terms of your nomination, hun, and in my humble opinion, I don't think they should necessarily be changed. You see, I've mentioned that you made "significant work to improve" the Mediawiki software, which is exactly the same thing you comment; not that you actually have "contributed" (yet) to it. Basically, we're describing your interest and work on this subject, which may well benefit the Wiki community in the future, or maybe not - but the issue we're addressing is your effort and enthusiasm in this direction, which must be commended, no matter whether they eventually become official or not. Still, just to avoid any possible confusion, I'll retouch the wording of that paragraph slightly. Now, gentleman, I hope to see your acceptance right away! ;) Oh, and don't forget to update the closing time! Smoochs, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 15:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually online right now Sharon, if you're still here. Shall I answer the questions, indicate my acceptance and add it to the RFA list myself? Or would you like final approval? :) --kingboyk15:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Awesome, Stevie! No, please, just go ahead, answer the bloody q's and add it asap - I can't wait to see it going! ;) Smoochies, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be off to a good start (7/0/0 as of this writing). Supported (jumping the gun, even!) by me, as promised. I see you referenced what I said in answer to a Q... hahaha! Good luck, although I'm hoping you won't actually need luck though. ++Lar: t/c18:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support Lar, it was really nice of you to jump the gun and, yes, it made telling the 'micronations story' a little easier - I still have a bit of a headache so that was a great help. I ought to tell you that you are one of the role models/friends/advisors I mentioned :)
It's not the end of the world if I don't get given a mop, so don't worry about the luck. It's a fun process - I couldn't resist popping back into the library to see how it was going - and it's gratifying to have received the support I've already notched up whatever the outcome. To be honest, it won't be this keeping me awake tonight, it's more likely to be The KLF and the work it will take to clean that topic up. (A very fascinating band - even if you don't like that kind of music - have a read. If I were to compile a fantasy dinner party guest list, Bill Drummond would be on it). --kingboyk21:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Although I like dance (trance, drum and bass, triphop, electronica, other stuff) (Tranceport is streaming as I type this), The KLF are not familiar to me. But anyone that likes American Heavy Metal (That 68 Ford Galaxie on the cover of "their" first single I mean, not Metallica) can't be all bad. (I'd actually already given the article a read because you mentioned it). If I were to buy one album only, what would be best? (I mostly like Art rock and blues ...) Note that the first link in the see also The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu is a redirect back to the article itself.
But me, a role model? THAT makes me question your judgement, my good man. PS: I'm kicking myself for not noming Bob Jackson for WP:DYK sooner, it might be too old by Monday. That story about saving Head First 26 years later is just too good to not mention. I love DYK, if I ever decided to be an admin that would be one of the things I'd want to work on (the template is protected so onlky admins can work on it) ... Now I need to make a bit more time to work on some articles again so I can see if I can extend my 6 for 6 DYK string... ++Lar: t/c22:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you like ambient music a la The Orb? If you do, then Chill Out is an easy recommendation. It's a landmark album in electronica and sounds as fresh today as when it was first made. I'm afraid a lot of their other material has dated somewhat - The White Room is a wonderful product of its time, and I still enjoy it immensely, but it sounds quite "early 90s". I should also point out that the KLF were actually quite mainstream in their sound (pop/dance crossover, albeit with a lot of strangeness around the edges). What always fascinated me was the complete package - that Bill Drummond was a former indie manager and cohort of Echo and the Bunnymen, and a fan of Elvis; that they were completely independent (KLF Communications) and yet became the biggest selling British band of 1991; their strange releases as The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu; the internal mythology; the arty performances on Top of the Pops - really quite a trip. Not many techno bands use steel guitars and bagpipes either, it has to be said :-)
The KLF are a trade friendly band I think (Kopyright Liberation Front, with all releases deleted in the UK) so if you ask me nicely you might get a copy of my favourite listen - the demo version of The White Room. It's rather more atmospheric and less polished than the release version; laden with steel guitars, Drummond's poetic Scottish voice; and an effortless road trip vibe.
Thanks for the headsup on the self-link. I recently merged in the articles on their alter egos, and haven't finished tidying yet. --kingboyk12:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
With regard to DYK, yeah that's an interesting fact - I wonder if it's the longest interval between the completion of an album and its release? I'd guess no... --kingboyk13:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow! I really didn't expect that. How do you know about them? I love the picture, it captures them perfectly.
I'm sorry to admit that I can sing along to China Dolls, I know every word phonetically but have not a clue about what they mean :-) --kingboyk12:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
(aeropagitica)'s RfA
Hello! You commented on my Talk page :
However, one thing bothers me. You've been with us since 2004 and yet you have a mere 10 edits to the Talk namespace, and none at all to Wikipedia talk?! --kingboyk01:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
My answer to this is that I like doing as much as talking about doing. Many of my contributions to WP have been categorising, contextualising or wikifiying pages where appropriate. My thought was that I could either remain passive and limit myself to commenting on the work of other editors or I could jump in to the maelstrom and actually perform the required edits, where I had experience. My comments on article talk pages have been along the lines of constructive criticism, where I can see what needs to be done in order to improve said article but I have either not had the knowledge or experience in order to perform the required tasks. Having said this, I now feel that I am gaining that experience rapidly, through active editing or contributing to AfD and reading the corresponding follow-ups. I acknowledge that a balance has to struck between giving constructive criticism and actively editing and it is comments such as yours that will assist me in working on areas in which I need greater experience and training. Regards, (aeropagitica) 07:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. There's no chance I'll be opposing you, it's a toss up between neutral and qualified support. I'll think about it and watch the debate. Some other editors have made the point that AFD is all about discussion, and I respect your input in that 'forum'. --kingboyk13:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Used Prod Correctly?
Hi I recently placed a PROD tag on Musings of a Thelemite and I just wondering if I did it correctly. I put my reasons,left a note on the page creators page. I'm kind of confused though, later if someone wants to challenge it they remove the talk and start discussion, and it enters the AFD right? I guess I'm confused if I completed all the steps correctly or if I was supposed to enter it into AFD. Thanks in advance for any help. --Chaoscrowley07:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you went about it in a textbook fashion, totally correctly.
PROD and AFD are alternatives, they don't run concurrently. So, yes, you can PROD an article, but if somebody challenges the deletion (which they did, but in the wrong place) and if you still feel that it should be deleted it can go to AFD for community discussion. I did that step for you, only because I got there first :)
Perhaps the only way I would have done it differently is that in this case I might have skipped the PROD stage. PROD deletions only work for really uncontroversial deletions. All it takes to stop a PROD is for one editor to challenge it (usually by deleting the tag, in this case I stepped in as the original editor had challenged it elsewhere). As this article was still being actively edited, it was always likely that the editor would challenge the deletion. You might have saved yourself a little work by sending it straight to AFD. It was your call, and there's no right or wrong answer. I hope that helps. --kingboyk12:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm working on KLF discography. To aid with formatting, I created two templates. The image thumbnails I am using get passed as arguments to the templates. I've noticed that, presumably as a result of the use of a template, the Image page doesn't know that the image is being used in an article (see e.g. Image:The KLF- Burn The Bastards.jpg). I'm worried that some bot will come along and say "right, they're not being used", and list them for deletion.
To be clear, you want "whatlinkshere" to show the pages using the image when you are on the image? Does it at least show that it's being used in the template? I see that on the page (but not the whatlinkshere) for the sample image referenced. Look into what includeonly can do for you to put things into categories, maybe that would help? Make a gallery somewhere that includes the images with a note pointing back to the templates? Those are both kludgy but maybe? I have to have a think about this, not sure I can be more help... (if you have to, ask on village pump technical subsection, that gets answers too) ++Lar: t/c19:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Well the strange thing is, the image I used as an example now has:
File links
The following pages link to this file:
* KLF discography
which is exactly what I want - the Image: page to show that the image is being used. I'm wondering if there's some strange caching issue or if the links tables aren't getting properly updated at the moment. (I've tried some null saves of the discography article). Leave it with me, perhaps this will sort itself out through magic :) --kingboyk19:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S. How is KLF discography looking to you? If you have any negative comments best give them to me now please :) I think it's looking pretty good, but then I would say that wouldn't I?! --kingboyk19:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Very quick response and yet a little too late as I've been working on one all day and gone my own way to an extent :) I'll certainly bear the advice in mind though. Thanks again. --kingboyk21:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
hi- just curious as to why you placed Terence McKenna in Category:The Shamen, as i can't find anything in The Shamen article about Terence or vice versa (after an admittedly brief look). as you've been here for a while i assume you have your reasons, so i haven't reverted, but I am curious . . . Perhaps the connection should be made explicit in the articles? Cheers --Heahtalk01:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, really?! Well, The Shamen is in need of a great deal of attention. They worked together and even released a single... let me find a web reference... [3][4]. The song was on the Boss Drum album, meaning it reached ooh... a million homes, at a guess. I'm not sure how many copies that LP sold but one of the singles was a number one hit. --kingboyk01:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. You really didn't look too hard :-) Terence is mentioned in the Shamen's article and vice versa. I just checked. --kingboyk01:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hah, yeah, i see it now. don't know how i missed that, in both articles. (looked for even less time this time around . . . ) thanks for the reply ;) --Heahtalk02:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I see you've just voiced your support on my RFA - much appreciated! If you have any further comments on The Shamen (as you can see I'm undertaking a major edit) please let me know. --kingboyk02:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: My RFA
I still stand by my opinion. Spending a large amount of time with the project is important to me when I vote for RFAs, since I feel most of the intricacies of Wikipedia take an extended time to understand. It's nothing personal, I just think you're Wikiage is a bit low. Also, remember that focusing on edit counts can be fatal. --tomf688{talk}00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree very much on the last point. I don't subscribe to editcountis at all; indeed the only reason there's a link on my page is because I knew would be standing for RFA at some time and people would want to view my edit count. However, edit counts are a demonstration of the time I have spent on the project recently. It is pretty much full time and I think that adds up to an awful lot of mileage. However, I respect your opinion and thank you very much for taking the time to reply. --kingboyk00:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't so much a case of 'be bold' as I have to much to do and I don't want to be lumbered with the position of chief organiser! However, for good or bad, I've moved the thread as requested. I won't make any announcement now, it's late and I'm tired. --kingboyk01:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem. It was less that I thought it shouldn't be deleted than that I thought prod wasn't the place for it. It just didn't seem obvious enough to me to skip AfD. NickelShoe15:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine, and thanks for the reply. My understanding though is that you only unPROD if you think it shouldn't be deleted. A PROD deletion is also easily reversible. The whole point of PROD is to reduce the strain on AFD. No sweat though, I'll see if anything happens and if not I'll AFD nominate it and linked articles later today. --kingboyk15:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope. We've talked about this on prod. It's on the talk page somewhere. If a deletion isn't obvious, it needs discussion and shouldn't be on prod. Anyone can remove the notice for any reason; that's the heart of the concept. Anyway, I'm not particularly in favor of deleting the article, hence my not moving it to AfD, but I'm not passionate about keeping it either. NickelShoe17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Righto. Since you say you're not particularly in favour of deleting it, does that mean you know something about the notability of this person? I'm not interested in nominating for the sake of it and if you feel it would be an easy keep then it would be silly to waste my time on it :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added byKingboyk (talk • contribs) .
He gets over 50,000 Google hits. He's a real guy who actually wrote some fitness books people actually read. That's good enough for me. I get tired of people nitpicking over notability just because they're not familiar with a person. Not that you were doing that.
I know Wikipedia already has notability guidelines, but as far as I'm concerned, the idea of notability should be that the encyclopedia article isn't misleading. Like, if I wrote an article about myself and called myself a "musician" it wouldn't really be wrong. I sing and play the piano. But when people read an article, they kind of assume a musician is in some way known as a musician by some people who don't know the person socially. Pavel Tsatsouline seems to be known as a fitness guru to some people who don't know him personally. NickelShoe18:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Let me do a bit more research and have a think about it. I understand your point, but WP:BIO is quite strict regarding living people. I'll have another read of that and see how it might apply to this fellow.
Which is why I'm not passionate about keeping it, because I understand my standards are different than Wikipedia's. Lar? NickelShoe18:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand that's it's a difficult area. I don't want to unnecessarily upset contributors, nor rob readers of useful info, but on the other hand we have to keep things manageable by having strict standards for inclusion. Some deletions are easy (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikible), this one isn't (which kinda vindicates your PROD removal, doesn't it? :))
My watchlist and todo list are going a bit crazy at the moment, so I'll hold off on any further action for now. Let's see if Lar has anything to add, and if the {{importance}} tag brings any results. And I suppose I'll have to do some reading too, <sigh> :) --kingboyk18:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for wanting me to take a look, but don't hold off because of me, I'll do my best to look but Fridays are travel days for me, in 2-3 hours I'll be flying home for the weekend... ++Lar: t/c19:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
(<- shift) Ok, the article seems a reasonable stub, with assertions of notability of the person that if true certainly support an article being here. You guys know I'm inclusionist, of course... if this came up on AfD, I'd tend toward keep. However I think I'd put in a request to user:Tyciol (who added the book info in Jan) to see if that user might have more direct evidence to add to the article. ISBNs for the books would ice the whole thing decisively I think. I'm watching here, LMK if that wasn't the level of looking at this you were looking for... ++Lar: t/c19:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for the comment on the [Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Community_assent]. It does seem like the deletion is irregular since the request for comments page is already established to address concerns. Your template idea might help. I also had a suggestion to document common practice into guidelines. Hopefully, a deliberative consensus can be establish by guideline. The significant part is the validation. Thank you. Welcome to Wikipedia. — Dzonatas21:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you! Hi Kingboyk/Archive 3, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota~°22:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
