User talk:Funky Monkey: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Jan 2006 – June 2006; ; ;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:06, 17 August 2006

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Uhm, just a bit confused here ...

Can I just ask about this edit by you? It appears to have been to someone else's post in a mediation case I'm involved in.

Of course I do not mind anyone watching a mediation case I'm involved in, or anything. It's just that you edited Carbonate's post, and I'd like to be sure that everything above Carbonate's signature (well, to the next dividing line) is indeed his writing, and his opinion.

Are you Carbonate? No offence intended, of course.

The edit seems harmless, since I read "synonomous" as a typo for synonymous, though it might well be a greek word in its own right ...

RandomP 21:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Cheers. Not the end of the world.--Crestville 12:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woops

[1]

I think you saw the swearing in the diff (especially being performed by an IP) and thought that the IP was performing vandalism, when in fact, the IP was actually reverting vandalism. No harm done, I've already reverted back. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeh, so now you get a vandalism warning! lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.210.97 (talk • contribs)

Not really you had vandalised 3 pages just prior to that edit. -- Funky Monkey (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand. I saw the previous comments and edits as well. As I said, no harm done. Just thought you should know. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my spelling of "acquisition" on NetIQ and AttachmateWRQ. I'd just realized my mistake and came back to fix it, but you'd already done it. Thanks again! Tyrel Haveman 19:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd remixes

So, you are definitely sure of this issue. We should put this in a proper article, imho, or these remixes are mentioned somewhere?--Doktor Who 15:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

Would you mind explaining which direction NEN is? You reverted my removal of the word from Charlemagne, Quebec ([2]). Orane (talk • cont.) 01:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey Funky Monkey, thankyou so much for your comment on my user page. It means so much to me that there are people who think enough of me that they'd be wiling to do that. I will give your offer some thought. Thankyou. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

I have explained my edits in the talkpage.UberCryxic 22:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...I am more than well aware of the three revert rule and have made no violations yet. Thanks for reminding me though.UberCryxic 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you told Sarah about a supposed violation of 3RR on my part. This is actually funny because just a few days ago another user falsely filed a 3RR report against me, which failed. Just so I don't have to go through that again, here's the 3RR rule: "Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period..." I really have only made two reverts (the third wasn't a real revert; it was including a sentence that I thought was appropriate).UberCryxic 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also says, "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." I'm not saying that you were being disruptive, but I do think you should be aware that 3RR is not as simple as having 3 reverts a day. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MJ

Hey Funky, I feel a bit out of the loop with regard to the MJ article. What is the consensus now? That no nicknames are to be included? I'm happy to have a word with the person, but I just want to make sure I have my facts straight! :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted that edit. It didn't contain the nicknames, but I think it's very problematic. I do not think we need to be making comparisons to Elvis, The Beatles and Sinatra in the opening paragraph! And the reference, as far as I can tell, is an article about James Brown, not Michael Jackson. I didn't read the whole thing but I couldn't even see Jackson's name. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if it appears that I am taking it personally, then I want to apologize. I obviously did not intend any such thing. Regarding the source, I would say that it is the most respectable and prestigious in the entire article. I mean...it is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee page. Furthermore, it contains plenty of facts, so that's an odd coment on your part. Here are some facts:

Thriller topped the charts for nine months (37 weeks) and remained in Billboard’s album chart for more than two years (122 weeks). Jackson won eight Grammy Awards and seven American Music Awards for Thriller. In 1985, it was proclaimed the Best Selling Album of All Time by the Guinness Book of Records. As of July 2001, Thriller has sold 26 million copies in the U.S., making it the second best-selling album in history behind the Eagles’ Greatest Hits (27 million). Worldwide, Thriller has sold 51 million copies. Beyond the numbers, how important was Jackson’s record-shattering feat? As producer Quincy Jones told Time magazine, “Black music had to play second fiddle for a long time, but its spirit is the whole motor of pop. Michael has connected with every soul in the world.”

I eagerly await your comments. Sarah suggested that we should not be making comparisons to Elvis, the Beatles, and Frank Sinatra, which I agree with. That's why the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is making them, and I would suppose they know more about it than we do.UberCryxic 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts are interesting, but I suppose what's confusing me is the "speculation" label. The people who made this statement presumably know a lot about how musicians are viewed by the musical community. As such it is reliable enough to be included in the article. If you want to just copy the statement from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame page, then I'd be fine with it. Doing it for one sentence does not constitute a copyright violation.UberCryxic 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what I'm getting at is that when you say "speculate," it's sort of like you're dismissing their views. But their views should be way more important than yours or mine. They are, after all, the people who put Michael Jackson in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Why could they not do the same to you, and suggest that your claims that Michael Jackson cannot be compared (or should not be) to these other people are also speculation?UberCryxic 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It's still opinion not facts"

Wikipedia is not supposed to document truth. We are supposed to make verifiable statements backed up by reliable sources. The statement is verifiable and comes from a very reliable source. I do not want to get philosophical, but in a sense "fact" is a label for a predominantly held view. As regards this topic, it is not necessarily one where you can have hard facts, particularly with issues about how people view him.UberCryxic 23:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a fundamental problem that you haven't addressed though. Your stance is also an opinion. Why should it receive greater weight than that of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?UberCryxic 23:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but if you think wikipedia isn't supposed to document truth, you are misled. -- Funky Monkey (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers.

In fact, I am well within my bounds to include the opinion of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.UberCryxic 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also from the same place: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.UberCryxic 23:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 Hello, I noticed that you told Sarah about a supposed violation of 3RR on my part. This is actually funny because just a few days ago another user falsely filed a 3RR report against me, which failed. Just so I don't have to go through that again, here's the 3RR rule: "Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period..." I really have only made two reverts (the third wasn't a real revert; it was including a sentence that I thought was appropriate).[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
+:It also says, "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." I'm not saying that you were being disruptive, but I do think you should be aware that 3RR is not as simple as having 3 reverts a day. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 00:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 == MJ ==