User talk:Classicfilms/Archive 3
 | This 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Dark Angel/Max Guevara
Just a note to say I really like what you've done with these two articles, particularly the latter which has become a wealth of information on the subject. Thanks! --Squiggleslash 23:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Squiggleslash- Thanks so much for the nice note about my edits to the Dark Angel and Max Guevara pages - two of my favorite subjects. If you have thoughts or ideas on how these and related articles can be improved I would be interested in hearing them. I think that the main article still needs quite a bit of work, with the addition of more sources. Thanks again, -Classicfilms 23:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Bad Move!
Moving Two of Us is not appropriate. The song is spawned the other works, and moving it breaks dozens of links. Move it back, please. Thank you. John Cardinal 03:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi John Cardinal, Thanks for writing, though I must disagree on this point. Please note on Wikipedia:Disambiguation:
- "When there is risk of confusion, the page for an ambiguous term should have a way to take the reader to any of the reasonable possibilities for that term; either the top of the page should have one or more disambiguation links, or the page itself should be a disambiguation page."
- No one will disagree that Two of Us (1969 song) is an important song. However, there are a number of uses of this expression that, in following with the rule above, need to be recognized. The disambiguation page Two of Us solves the problem. Regards, -Classicfilms 03:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
NPOV violation
Hi Classicfilms. Someone removed the criticism of the choice of Gore as Nobel Peace Prize winner. This is a violation of NPOV. Can you do something about it? Regards, Masterpiece2000 08:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I added a comment. -Classicfilms 14:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The article currently lacks references and is a bit weak on the origins and I see you have added some interesting material on this to the other entries you were working on and thought it worth flagging it up here as the same material could improve that article too. Keep up the good work. (Emperor 17:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC))
- Hi Emperor! Yes (sigh) I noticed the same thing about this article and (as I normally do when encountering an article that is virtually unreferenced) felt a bit overwhelmed by it. I'll see what I can do with regard to at least the Marston section of the article - I'll also flag the other sections to encourage other editors (who may be more familiar with these versions of the lasso) to add sources. Thanks again for your words of encouragement and for your help on the Wonder Woman (and related) articles - it is much appreciated! -Classicfilms 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose in the end we can only do our best but adding a few more details could encourage others to do the same. I have to say I haven't got anything to hand but, again, if I see anything that might be useful I'll see what I can do. (Emperor 18:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC))
I went ahead and tagged much of the article. I also added some sourced material to the Marston section, though much of it is from elsewhere. It's about the best I could come up with at this point. Please feel free to edit what I have put there - this is not my area of expertise so it's about the best I could come up with. Hope it helps. -Classicfilms 01:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks that's great - the origin is the important bit and your additions help cover the bases. Fingers crossed it inspires others to source the other statements ;) Thanks again for the hard work. (Emperor 01:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC))
- Thanks! And thanks for the tweaks - they improve the overall article. I did look around a bit but these seem like the best and most reliable sources to use. If I come across anything else in the future I'll add it. And yes, I hope other editors will develop the rest of the article with sources. Regards, -Classicfilms 01:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see ...
Please see some comments about your editing style at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment desired on article change
Hello. You previously expressed concern with the treatment of "polarization" expressed in the Hillary Rodham Clinton#Cultural and political image article section. This material has been reworked to try to address such concerns. And mention of "polarization" has been removed from the lead section. Please give it a read now and comment on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton as to your reaction. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Feedback is needed at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Solicitation of opinions from previous "polarization" objectors. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
DAB question for you
Hi JaGa, I have disambiguation question for you. I am wondering why Rachel (disambiguation) is not the main point for Rachel. I'm not sure how the Wikipedia can have the main article for that page be the Biblical character without violating WP:NPOV. At the very least Rachel (given name) should be the main article with a redirect to the DAB page. Suggestions? Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note! If the Biblical character is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there's absolutely nothing POV about placing her article there. See David, for instance. If you think it should be changed, put in a move request; but personally, I'd say the Biblical figure is the primary topic, considering her position in Christianity and Judaism, and the frequent references to her in popular culture (Moby Dick comes to mind). --JaGatalk 19:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm unfamiliar with the move process. Can you describe it a bit? Well, I must respectfully disagree with you (and with David too). I am not saying that references to the Jewish/Christian bible do not occur in American (or British) literature. For the Wikipedia to make "Rachel" the biblical character or "David" the biblical character a primary topic,however, is indeed offering a particular point of view by implying that these religious figures offer a global definition of whatever the topic is (in this case names). I'm not saying it is a conscious form of NPOV. But the English Wikipedia is accessed by individuals whose world view may not derive from this particular religious viewpoint -- and I say that for any article that would pertain to any character of any religion. In other words, the most NPOV use of a primary topic article would simply be something like Rachel (given name) . Thanks,-Classicfilms (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Check out this move request link; that's where I go when I need to make a page move. Still, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is what's important here; when you consider incoming links, book searches, etc., it seems the pages are set up properly. (Especially David, which is a vital article.) --JaGatalk 20:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ha ha, joke is on me for not noticing the link in your first post. :-) I do respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it. I placed the move request on the article page. Thanks again for disamb. help. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Check out this move request link; that's where I go when I need to make a page move. Still, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is what's important here; when you consider incoming links, book searches, etc., it seems the pages are set up properly. (Especially David, which is a vital article.) --JaGatalk 20:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm unfamiliar with the move process. Can you describe it a bit? Well, I must respectfully disagree with you (and with David too). I am not saying that references to the Jewish/Christian bible do not occur in American (or British) literature. For the Wikipedia to make "Rachel" the biblical character or "David" the biblical character a primary topic,however, is indeed offering a particular point of view by implying that these religious figures offer a global definition of whatever the topic is (in this case names). I'm not saying it is a conscious form of NPOV. But the English Wikipedia is accessed by individuals whose world view may not derive from this particular religious viewpoint -- and I say that for any article that would pertain to any character of any religion. In other words, the most NPOV use of a primary topic article would simply be something like Rachel (given name) . Thanks,-Classicfilms (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Internet history
Category:Internet history, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Category:Texts related to the history of the internet, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)