User talk:Jonathan Williams
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He has a song on their first album, Eight/OOIOO, called Sister 001 (eYe mix), and I believe he assisted with the electronics as well. Toe Rag 20:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brian Chippendale revert
Hello. I am Drewcifer3000, and recently made an edit to Brian Chippendale which you reverted. I appreciate your concern with the accuracy of Wikipedia articles, and enourage you to keep up the good work. As you may have noticed via the history page of that particular article I have had a heavy hand in the creation, upkeep, and accuracy of that article. Having noticed "Lord Sun Sun" under associated acts, I realized I had never heard of this act. The article itself has no mentions of it, and "A simple google search" of "Lord Sun Sun" "Lord Sun Sun Brian" and "Lord Sun Sun Chippendale" wound up with no results whatsoever. Googling "Lord Sun Sun Brian Chippendale," however, did in fact lead me to the single article which you have since linked to. So, my apologies for not finding the single mention of Lord Sun Sun in the entire internet.
In the future, I would urge you to take a look at the following pages:
- WP:V ("Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." If you need help with any of that, please refer to WP:CITE.)
- WP:EQ and WP:CIV ("Participate in a respectful and civil way." In the future please refrain from calling people "a dick," as it is against Wikipedia Policy.)
- WP:AGF ("Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.")
As per WP:FACT, I don't think that a single internet source constitutes a reliable source of information. As per WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material." I would encourage you to reference the "lotsofnoise" page in the article as a temporary solution, and to seek out more (and more reliable) sources for this piece of information in the near future.
Thank you for your edits! Keep up the good work.
--Drewcifer3000 00:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Harold Aspden bio article: refrain your labeling
Dear Sir/Madam, please do not label Aspden's biographical article as "pseudoscience", according to your own criteria.
Again, Aspden's work may be controversial, but he is a notable and respected old physicist and engineer, member of the scientific community (Institute of Physics and his academic curricula). Part of his work on electromagnetism, electrostatics, electrodynamics, nuclear fusion (hot and cold), the quantum field, etc., and of his predicitions related to fundamental particles is published in serious, notable mainstream journals since 1951 (eg. 9 papers in @Physics Letters A since 1972; 24 papers in Europhysics Letters, former Lettere al Nuovo Cimento since 1975; etc.). This British physicist has also several published books of Physics (search into his site and in amazon.co.uk) and several patents. All this data has been already discussed at Talk:Harold Aspden.
How can you sustain your claim of "pseudoscience"?: As it was already previously asked to you in the article's talk page: where is your, or a third-party, peer-reviewed published paper, in these fields of physics, directly contradicting Aspden's peer-reviewed papers? (note that some of his papers are listed at the talk page). Please, until then refrain from labeling the mentioned biographical article again. Cheers! --213.58.54.103 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your comment retrieved from the page User:213.58.54.103:
- "Dear Sir/Madam,
- You have shit for brains"
- Please, if you have any problem with Life itself and/or with people around you, maybe you should make a pause and give a deep look into yourself in order to find out where things went wrong (sometimes we just need to re-evaluate our own path; it is hard to recognize it and it takes courage; but I believe the benefits of such introspection (or retrospection) can become of huge value and a source of strength to yourself in future times). As you must have already realized, your comment, stated above, went far beyond a WP:CIVILITY violation and no one has to tolerate the intelectual arrogance of your words ([1]) and actions ([2]). See you. --213.58.54.110 23:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sod off nutjob --Jonathan Williams 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Internet Channel
I intended on reverting myself. But I suppose the edit didn't go through. However, not all redirects must be posted on the talk page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Einstein on the Beach
Heya,
On the article for Einstein on the Beach we seem to have something of a difference of opinion. please discuss this on the relevant Talk:Einstein on the Beach so as to avoid the pointless edit/revert/re-edit/re-revert cycle. --Black Butterfly 10:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Civility
Hi. Don't do stuff like this in edit summaries. Stay civil. --Wafulz 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] gay
u gay!! 130.207.218.196 18:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Boredoms revert
I was wondering why you reverted my edit to Boredoms that put the Rebore albums back in the studio album discography. I clearly stated in my edit summary that those are not official Boredoms studio albums but rather remix albums, as I have discovered through some research. I wanted to get your input on this before I re-removed the albums. = ∫tc 5th Eye 07:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User:Ward3001, you will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- You don't consider it vandalism to change something on a user's page without their consent, which you identify as vandalism, as you did here? Do it again and I will anally impregnate you. Ward3001 22:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 24 hours for incivility. Please do not edit other users' user pages in this way again or you will be blocked for longer. Academic Challenger 22:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re that article section
Allow me to direct you to WP:COATRACK. Jtrainor 23:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hi dere
I'd welcome you since you never got officially welcomed, but maybe that would have cramped your editing style <ref>[[User:TeaDrinker/Welcome_study]]</ref>. :o Dreamyshade (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:BLP
Read the policy:
- Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing. Ty 00:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a question of whether it can be sourced. It's a question of whether it is sourced (from acceptable sources), and, furthermore, neutral, balanced, relevant and in context, all achieved with the utmost sensitivity for such contentious subject matter. Ty 01:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It applies everywhere on wikipedia. Careful, sensitive discussion of possible article content is acceptable. That particular talk page was beyond the pale. Emusic.com is not a strong enough source for any contentious BLP material. It's not just a matter of finding somewhere that says something (see Talk:Xeni Jardin). If it's something contentious it has to have strong mainstream coverage for inclusion in an article. I gather certain things about him are well known, in which case major reputable sources should be easy to come by. To say he met someone when she was 14 and they got married at 17 (if sourced properly) is fine. The other stuff is complete violation of BLP and other policy, being editorial interpretation of the facts. See WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH. Ty 11:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
