User talk:K72ndst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. On the discussion page for the New Yorker article, you wrote, "How come the whole birth of the magazine gets glossed over? ... Too much on silly Tilley, not enough on the history of the magazine's creation, in my opinion." You're absolutely right. Please go ahead and rewrite the article, rearranging and adding information as you see fit. The article needs a lot of improvement, and any help and expertise you can provide would be most appreciated. Tomgally 11:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jerome Zerbe

You've done a very nice job with the Jerome Zerbe article. I'd like to weave in a bit about his sexuality and the nude photos of actors before they were known. Wanted to float this with you first to see what thoughts if any you have since you've done so much work on the article. Doc 16:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I respect your position and would certainly not want it to take over the article. On the other hand, when a person's orientation has been well known I do think that it is and belongs as a part of history. Doc 02:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometime you shoudl get around to posting those pics for this article. Would be cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.190.88 (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Drinkers

For the past 2 days, 2 different "helpers" have removed the Famous Drinkers category from both Dorothy Parker and Robert Benchley. I don't know what they have been drinking, but they obviously do not know anything about these two members of the Algonquin Round Table. Particularly since Parker wrote "Just A Little One" and Benchley penned "After 1903, What?" that both figure into popular culture about drinking... I guess some people have nothing better to do than to pass judgement on others. -- k72ndst 11:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion that led to the deletion of the category that you could have particpiated in. There was a suggestion for making an article or list instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_9#Category:Famous_drinkers

I am v upset about it too. I only recently discovered these Goldkenn Remy Martin liquior chocolates, that and 'pound a pint, doubles for £2' at the student union have helped me get over the deletion of my fave categories. I love reading about drinking exploits, and think perhaps the compromise; Category:Notorious drinkers is perhaps acceptable to most, but to me it seems like demonizing the suckling of Bacchus we endure for our manifold sins...Gareth E Kegg 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I could see a new catergory termed Drinking Culture that might be more inclusive than Category:Notorious drinkers. I have several good sources and areas to kick in; it could be both literary and pop culture "famous drinkers" along with current trends in social drinking, such as your liquor chocolates (which are delicious). It could be multi-part: people who are known to be proponents of drinking and wrote about (F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway) and people in 2006 who like trying absinthe, to famous watering holes around the globe... the possibilities are as bottomless as a glass. -- k72ndst 01:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I started List of iconic drinkers, which i'll update today, needs more work...but a wider drinknig culture is v goodGareth E Kegg 11:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You are the man! I added to your list and alphabetized it, because I know some Wiki style nazi would go after it if it wasn't... I added some quotes and background too. Hope this can grow to a deep article of some good people by some good people. -- k72ndst 9:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I added Miss Parker to the list, but you should improve my entry :) Gareth E Kegg 12:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Word up, it's my round. It has become too populated with Rock Stars and Yahoos, and not embittered gadabouts, playboys and actors, et al. I'll get some more refs in and try and add a few fun stats. Oliver Reed's 104 pints in a weekend still remains the (falling off) bench mark Gareth E Kegg 00:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yawn How can we delete Michelle Rodriguez from the page before it starts creeping up the google rankings? They serve Quadruple G+T's at my student's union for $10. Gareth E Kegg 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we add Mr Steven Petrosino to the list? For a legend in his own happy hour, he seems quite coy about his great feat, and is a fellow wikipedian to boot! Gareth E Kegg 00:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keggy the Keg - This should be me! Gareth E Kegg 20:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Nazamo changed the lead line slightly [1]. What do you think? Gareth E Kegg 18:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I weighed in on the iconic discussion, what happened to List of iconic smokers? Gareth E Kegg 17:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pulitzer IPA

Hello K72ndst, the Joseph Pulitzer article currently says [Pulitzer is] pronounced "pull-it-sir". This seems to be a American English oriented transliteration of his name. Such transliterations are useful for the language they are used in (as it is with English), but speakers of other languages may have problems using this transliteration to read the correct pronuncation. If I took the current "pull-it-sir", used it in German, and then translated it back to English, it would end up as "pull-it-zeer". Therefore, the IPA alphabet was established, allowing to give most precise pronuncations.

I mostly do not use edit summaries, as they slow down my work at Wikipedia and because nice-sounding edit summaries may hide devastating edits done to articles. Putting it in a nutshell: Never trust edit summaries. Always use the diff function. Bye, --Abdull 12:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism?

Hello,

It seems kinda obvious, but can you confirm that "Professional wrestler Lou Thesz" was not a member of the Algonquin Round Table? Tks Ling.Nut 03:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary? How about Lou Gehrig and Joe Louis? Hayford Peirce 20:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A. Woollcott

Thanks. I did as much as I could in a short time. It probably needs more work. I dunno where people come up with this fannish bullshit that they put into various articles! Hayford Peirce 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dorothy Parker article

Sorry, not good enough: the argument that something should be in the article just because enough idiots think it might have something to do with the subject is a bad reason to keep it in. It doesn't belong, therefore should just be removed. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo in two articles

There is nothing that I know of about using a photo in two or several articles, for that matter. The fair use issue is the one to be careful about as they have gotten much harder on the rationale for fair use and some editors are going overboard, in my opinion, deleting images. Doc ♬ talk 03:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to I Am Legend

Can you provide a citation for what you recently added to this film article? Information in Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 13:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a title for the Cite news template to work -- any chance you can add that? Thanks for your timely response about adding the citation information! --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 14:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There isn't one. It's part of a roundup of news gossip in the city. The name of the page is Page Six. And there is no reporter byline either. I have a copy of the newspaper, but the story is not online yet. This is the best I can do. --K72ndst 15:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an issue with not providing citations for filming information? I'm aware that the edits of new film information are in good faith, but the content must be verifiable. I just added Washington Square Park filming information based on a citation. Do you have a reason for trying to contact another editor about my removing uncited information from I Am Legend? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 23:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No. As I write this, I am watching them shoot this movie out my window. That is all I will say on the subject. I will not be contributing any other information to this article. I am finished. --K72ndst 02:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: dorothyparker.com links

They are linkspam, see WP:EL, especially the stuff about the "walking tours" which are commercial whether the organization is nonprofit or not. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. For more info see WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer, particularly the paragraph labelled "review your intentions". It is obvious that those links are promotionally motivated and therefore I've been removing them as spam. 67.117.130.181 03:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dorothy parker links

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks.

Please stop restoring these links. They are spam. You'll notice that I left a few in place which satisfied Wikipedia external links guidelines. If you persist in restoring the inappropriate ones I'll have to request blacklisting of the entire dorothyparker.com site which will make it impossible to add any extlinks to that site. Thanks for your understanding and willingness to stop abusing this charity encyclopedia project for promoting external activities. Regards, 67.117.130.181 03:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue spamming you will be blocked from editing. Please stop restoring those links. I see you are also the owner of the site being linked to. That makes them WP:VANITY edits. Thanks. 67.117.130.181 03:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] official site

If you're claiming dorothyparker.com is an official site of Dorothy Parker (unlikely in my view since her entire estate went to the NAACP) this relationship needs to be documented by reliable sources per Wikipedia's verifiability standards before the link can be included in the article. I've reverted it again, please do not restore without documentation. 67.117.130.181 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life (magazine)

Thanks for catching my goof! I have repositioned the A. S. Tobey reference - I hope it's OK now! MdArtLover 17:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Wished On The Moon

Parker is credited as the lyricist on this jazz standard, is it based on a poem of hers, or did she collaborate with the composer Ralph Rainger? Hope you like the addition of Sinatra and Yeltsin :) Gareth E Kegg 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it was introduced in [2]. Gareth E Kegg 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yo, check out I Wished on the Moon. Talk:Giovanni di Stefano#Private Eye Article Creepy...Gareth E Kegg 01:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Zappone bio

Hi Kevin:

I hope this is your talk page. Your bio above is great but belongs on a stand-alone page in the public part of wiki.

Sources for Tony Zappone bio:

My primary source for minute details in this article was Tony Zappone himself, whose activities have been well known in the Tampa Bay area during the more than 40 years of his involvement in local media and business.

Note: Absolutely necessary to remove names of private individuals and phone numbers from this list. These are published all over the Internet in Google and a violation of their privacy.

[edit] List of iconic drinkers

Hi, I left a message on Talk:List of iconic drinkers. In short, the images you added on the article (with one exception of Image:Musorgskiy.jpg are not public domain. Garion96 (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the images do pass the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria on other articles and simply because this article was on my watchlist. Garion96 (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems kind if pointless, but feel free to copy the above message to Talk:List of iconic drinkers. Since I explained it enough already. Garion96 (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Governors Island

Hi. Re your message: Governors Island has been open for Open House New York on the first weekend of October for the last few years. I'll update with a citation. (The NY Times isn't always perfect.) Station1 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ferber1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ferber1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long time no comment...

Hullo Sir, I hope I find you in a hangover or worse. What think you of this new wikiproject? Gareth E Kegg 22:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Algonquin Round Table

If you have an issue with material that's been added to Algonquin Round Table, Dorothy Parker or any other article, I certainly encourage you to add appropriately sourced material. Not really seeing what the benefit to Wikipedia in general or ART-related articles in particular is for you to go around bitching on peoples' talk pages instead. Otto4711 01:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the above comment. Hideous. I might buy your book actually. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial Links?

I'm not sure what the problem is with some commercial links. Yes, I have added some links to some pages but this was not done for the sole purpose of advertising. Contributors from this site (wikipedia) have many times in the past linked to our site for the purpose of providing links to reference material for almost all subjects. We have been in business for more than 20 years working with LIFE magazine solely. We have the largest collection of magazines and one of the largest data bases in existence for LIFE including even LIFE themselves. LIFE magazine frequently sends people to us for the purpose of research; services that even they cannot provide as well as we have for many years. I have made additions to some of the pages that were lacking information or have made corrections. I have not been placing large ads on pages willy-nilly, I have linked some pages to our site to provide a resource for information that some people may want. The links have not been in the form of “Come to our site and buy, buy, buy” they have been place as unobtrusive as possible; they don’t even use our name in the link heading. Many contributions from wikipedia reference articles and information obtained from LIFE magazines why are the readers not allowed to know that they can still purchase these classic articles from a reputable source that spends many hours each week helping people locate information, many times without a purchase involved.…Gregglbk (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply, however even in your own reference to "Links to be avoided" looking at # 5 you will see that wikipedia has created a way for people to link to both commercial and non-commercial book sites. I ask just what is the difference between books and magazines. the only think is that magazines do not have an "ISBN" number to use as a reference. This makes for a very unfair situation. If you look at #4 in "What should be linked" you will see that "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews". So.... If we were selling books with reviews and interviews I could create a link using the ISBN number to a whole list of providers and sellers, but because we provide issues of one of this country's most highly regarded periodicals for over 75 years that includes some of the most memorable reviews, interviews and content but happens to be a magazine without an ISBN number, you believe we can not create a small unobtrusive link to allow reads access to the information contained within these issues. This does not seem in keeping with wikipedias own guide lines of not being censored. You seem to have become the gaurdian of wikipedia posts as only you have taken exception to any of the links I have added. Gregglbk 15:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One more for the road...

It's inevitably over :( Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Ross...

Than you for your nice words about my Harold Ross portrait. You might be interested in a new Dorothy Parker portait I just posted on Wiki. I have also ordered your Parker book. I saw it when I was in New York last year and regretted not getting it. Simonfieldhouse (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)