User talk:FlightTime/Archive 19

← Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20 →

The Eagles

Archived discussions

The following page is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

---

@MLpearc: The Eagles are disbanded Don Henley said in a interview that the Eagles are done

References

@68.9.114.103: You can bring it up here: Talk:Eagles_(band)#Official_status. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

ACC

Hi Mlpearc. I requested access to the ACC tool about a month ago. My request was declined for not being listed on m:Access to nonpublic information policy/Noticeboard. When my confirmation was listed on the noticeboard, I replied to the Google Groups email address as requested on April 1, but I haven't heard back. Could you look into my request and let me know if there is anything I need to do. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Please send a review request to accounts-enwiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org Mlpearc (open channel) 02:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

listal

Which contributions do you mean? Feel free to email me if you'd prefer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Sorry, I assumed it was obvious, all of User:Iistal's, 95% of which are blatant BLP violations and the other five percent at this point are collateral damage. I'm working on them now if you don't get to it. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 14:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done I got 'em, thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 14:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

edits

sorry man, the first time i saw some edits it wasn't a user named editor, now it say yours? wierd, so please ignore the vandal reference

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 04:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nuro Dragonfly: not a problem buddy, I saw your changes, not sure how those happened, I was reverting those addition/removals guess it was some type of {{ec}}. No propblem about the "vandal" status, I know the edits were vandalism not who was trying to fix them. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 16:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

coolio man, was weird, has to EC, only thing I can think of also..

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 21:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, misclicked. –Fredddie™ 00:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fredddie: No problem, not even worth mention, Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 00:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Staffordshire Terrier www.dogsbite.org

This website accumulates statistics on actual temperment of the breed. Other websites noted in this same page share just opinion on temperment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David2042795 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@David2042795: You don't add external links in the body of an article, that's why your edits have/will be removed. Please see WP:LINKSPAM Mlpearc (open channel) 04:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Your actions at Orlando

Hello.

At Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting you archived four RfCs that had been closed about 8 hours earlier. I felt that that was not enough time for the regulars who were deeply involved in those RfCs to stop by and see the closes. I also felt that there was no hurry to archive them. So I reverted your archive edits to the talk page. As per best practice, I clearly explained the rationale for my revert in my edit summary: "What the big hurry? maybe we could leave these long enough for people to see the results without going to the archives?" Two hours later, you archived the RfCs again, without explanation. Do you WP:OWN that talk page?

Meanwhile [1], you issued a disruptive editing warning to an editor whose edit you disagreed with, an abuse of process, and, when they politely questioned your revert rationale on their talk page, you didn't respond. When I added my support for their edit and questioned the DE warning, including a ping, you still did not respond.

Can you help me understand your actions in either case? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I have removed the article from my watchlist, there won't be any further edits there from me, it's a little out of my subject circle anyway. The threads I archived are closed discussions, they can be found just as easy in the archive. you are fee to revert the edit, as you already have. P.S. I do not own anything on Wikipedia, save maybe my username. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 04:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Finally, a response! You are in fact a human not a bot! Well my WP:OWN reference was due to the fact that you simply repeated the first action without response to my editsum, explanation, or discussion. That's something I generally see from two groups of editors: Those who are too new to know better, and the more experienced ones who can't be bothered with standard collaborative best practices. I refer to the latter group using the shorthand WP:OWN.
BTW, it's actually not as easy to find things in the archive. Walk through the steps and you'll see that's correct. Plus, one has to remember, with all the other things on their mind, that there actually was an RfC that has been open for weeks and has been relatively quiet for a lot of that time. All considered, I feel it's best practice to leave a closed RfC around for at least a few days.
Thanks and cheers. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Bruce Willis

How is this not sourced? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm moving on. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threat by Realbeamiller99. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Please do not give ANI notices to editors that are NOT mentioned, Why did you leave this notice ? Mlpearc (open channel) 22:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I left this notice because you were the editor who reverted the BLP violation back into the article, and that BLP violation was mentioned at WP:ANI so I felt it important that you should be aware of the WP:DOLT issue and the part you played in it. I assumed that it was a good faith mistake on your part so I did not ask for any review of your actions as part of the ANI discussion. MPS1992 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That's better

Far too soon for you to be even thinking of retiring :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: What a pleasant surprise this morn. Thank you Kudpung, a well needed shot in the arm Thanx again. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 13:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac

Hello, I fail to see why I should include a reference to a "reliable Source" when it is of public record that those singles reached their respective places in the UK singles charts ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.17.207 (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello its me again, I have looked at the Fleetwood Mac page again and am aghast that a) the ONLY entry of historical fact in the first two paragraphs that has been referenced is for Albatross as a No.1 single in the UK charts. b) All referrals to US chart entries are allowed to exist WITHOUT any credible references . Double Standards ? Where do you think Fleetwood Mac's fame and fortune came from ? Certainly not from Buckingham or Nicks. The four hit singles provided the real Fleetwood Mac, backed by the early UK and Europe touring, the success that subsequently allowed Mick Fleetwood, after Green, Spencer and Kirwan disappeared the financial freedom to bring in Nicks and Buckingham and turned the truly innovative Blues band into something else. Had that UK success not been there McVie and himself would have just carried on being session men and might possibly have found themselves as part of another band. It wasn't called Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac by the record company for nothing ! As an additional point I have a real problem with calling it a British-American band since the two Americans came much later after the formation and although highly influential (someone had to write the songs after Green left !) were not leaders since Fleetwood has maintained control throughout. No doubt there is a Wiki guideline for naming nationalities of bands throughout their lifespan. Yours sincerely Ralph Jennings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.17.207 (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, If what your changing is such public knowledge, it should be easy to cite it. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

source for Billy Idol revision

source is "Dancing With Myself" by Billy Idol. p. 11, ISBN 978-1-4516-2851-7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usswisconsin (talk • contribs) 05:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much a grandfather clause as a matter of "if this is a problem, it should have been considered one before". Other people have seen this username in the past, and they didn't deem it worthy of a UAA report; why should I prefer your argument for reporting over others' opinions that nothing needed to be done about the username? That's not a slight against you in particular; I'd say the same thing to anyone else who did the same thing. Basically, UAA is for new-ish usernames, since (unlike old ones like this) we can't assume that they've been silently approved by lots of other editors. And finally, I've checked all of this account's edits, but I see no reason to consider that it's s shared username. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello... Hard Rock is a proper genre too... As the own page Hard Rock of Wikipedia tells Skid Row in the Glam Metal era (1980s) last paragraph it says "Skid Row also released their eponymous début (1989), reaching number six on the Billboard 200, but they were to be one of the last major bands that emerged in the glam rock era.[98]" Has a reference also to confirm that: V. Bogdanov, C. Woodstra and S. T. Erlewine, All Music Guide to Rock: the Definitive Guide to Rock, Pop, and Soul (Milwaukee, WI: Backbeat Books, 3rd edn., 2002), ISBN 0-87930-653-X, pp. 1018–9. So everybody knows that Skid Row was under the tutelage of Bon Jovi and Cinderella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinova (talk • contribs) 11:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Spinova: If you want to change a genre listing in the infobox, you need to have this discussion on the article's talk page, not here on my talk. Also, please note the guidelines on the infobox documentation Mlpearc (open channel) 21:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing Black Sabbath discography page

Hello, I'm trying to edit tables to get contents in columns: Title, Album details, Peak chart position, Certification. I am interested in that structure since I want to read data: type of album, name and year from the web page to organize my music collection. I have edited 'Studio albums' but doing something wrong with 'Live albums'. There are lot of variations in tables that shows discography from band to band so I will read what I can and fill data manually. Kind regards, Ivan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Bubych (talk • contribs) 16:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

MTV Biased Wording

The MTV Article has biased wording stated in it. I have removed the biased wording because MTV is relevant in their target audience. Just because ratings are falling does not mean they are not relevant anymore. MTV has a large following presence on social media and receive great interactions on there from viewers. Nielson ratings also fails to capture the amount of viewers for new episodes of shows through services like Hulu, Netflix and also from the MTV App. I believe the article is just fine with describing the current ratings fall that MTV is having as it is restructuring itself with different programming and destinations for people to watch content live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctrg298 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ctrg298: Wikipedia is not censored. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 04:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Scorpions (band)

I removed absolutely nothing from the article. I just broke a paragraph to its logical components. Please restore my edit. Thanks!--Nostro Fidelis (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Linking

Hi - just got a warning about a "spam link"... i did do an edit, but the only link i put in was to another Wiki page! What did i do wrong?

Please see WP:LINKSTYLE. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

So, I was attempting to insert a link to the BTO page; but instead of the to the top of the page, to one of the sub-sections. I see i messed up the pipe link, i definitely was not spamming or linking to spam of any type, can you please remove that spam warning i got?!

Billy Idol BLP

The reason why I changed the template is because there were sources that were cited in the section and there was a blp template available (which I changed the template in the section to) that said that the blp section needed additional citations for verification. If what was in the section wass not enough for this template change, could you please tell me why? 108.23.204.17 (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Matchbox Twenty Mad Season could also be label as post-grunge too, why not?

I included the post-grunge label on Mad Season, I had a source were the reviewer from Billboard said that, On Mad Season, the band nerves up another slick collection of R.E.M. and Pearl Jam influence post-grunge classic rock. That same source is a Billboard magazine review, it is massively similar to the pop rock source, the pop rock source is also a Billboard magazine review but what makes the pop rock source so special and the post-grunge source which is pretty much a billboard magazine reviewer just like the pop rock source so fake? When it's also reviewed by a professional reviewer? I just want to know what's wrong with having the post-grunge label on the album. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC) )

Please argue your point on the article talk page, not on my talk. I see that you started a discussion, this will allow community input. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 13:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry I wrecked your ANI thread. That wasn't my intention.Begoon ^talk 18:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon: That was not directed at you. Thanx for your input. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I know. I still perverted the thread from your original intention. That's why I'm sorry. Begoon ^talk 18:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Sure would like to know why you reverted correct edits on the Hamlet (band) article and then warned me. This is the sort of thing that should be discussed. The infobox edit removing "records" is correct based on Template:Infobox musical artist#label. The pseudo headings should not be used, based on MOS:HEADING, but if they're going to be used, repeating the word in the heading, "members" in this case, is wrong. Finally, 800/20 was the size agreed up on by the music project for band timelines. So unless you can explain why you're going against the guidelines, I suggest you disengage. Feel free to follow-up on the article's talk, per WP:BRD. I elected to discuss here to save you the embarrassment of being called out in public. I would be happy to discuss at the article though. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Kristen Stewart

I've reverted you. Please see the current consensus re the infobox on the above article. Cassianto^Talk 23:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Thank you for pointing this out, quite a unique circumstance. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Not really; it's becoming more and more common nowadays, especially within arts biographies (see any of my FA's on my userpage). Infoboxes work well on some articles: film, sports, political, geographical, to name but a few, but on arts, they kind of struggle to earn their existence. Everything in the arts IBs is replicated in the lead section, perhaps even the first few lines, whereas the things that aren't in the lede, shouldn't really be in the IB as the lede is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. You can't beat nicely written prose in my opinion. That looks more professional than anything else. Cassianto^Talk 05:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I took all of it from Rolling Stone magazines Collectors Edition on Keith Richards dated October 2015.

Nothing I added can be disputed in the least. I would never add disputable information.

If your goal is to provide truth and factual context, please add it back immediately. I appreciate that you cannot allow any information to be added. If need be, I can email you pages from the magazine as proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14C:4302:4486:41F7:24C5:1B62:1373 (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

A rock opera is a collection of rock music songs

From the introduction of the page. That makes it pretty clear that a rock opera is not a song, it's a collection of songs (plural). Bohemian Rhapsody is a rock song with operatic elements in it. Rodericksilly (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW the IP is somebody who is just making random changes, he's changed the genre box for the Queen article too despite a long-established consensus that "Rock" is sufficient. Rodericksilly (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a useful article too, which states that the rock opera is an album (very much akin to a concept album and the two are often used to mean the same thing). http://uk.ign.com/articles/top-14-greatest-rock-operasconcept-albums-of-all-time?page=1

Rodericksilly (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

American Vision Windows

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it talks about the company's failed project American Vision Solar as well as the decreasing and increasing ratings of the company in Qualified Remodeler. I am simply using the extent of what my sources give me and I am always open to constructive criticism. It is also not unambiguously promotional because it's content is neutral towards the advertising of the company itself. If the article stays I will rewrite to make sure the article is more encyclopedic in tone because otherwise was an unintentional mistake. The article is notable per WP:GNG because there is more than enough reliable sources to establish this article as notable. If the promotional content (which I'm guessing is the Product section?) was removed then there would still be much encyclopedia worthy content and a deletion would not be productive in this matter. --SWAloha (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Message

Hi! you just left me a message on my talkpage. Those messages were not meant for NeilN, I was arguing with a sock-puppet which joined the discussion.Alhaqiha (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alhaqiha: Yes, my error, my apologizes. I have already reverted my edits. again sorry. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no problem!Alhaqiha (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Genre category changes

Hello, you left me messages about adding War Pigs and Real World to certain genre categories. I just want to let you know I wasn't trying to be disruptive. The songs were listed as being a part of those genres, so I thought I should add them to the appropriate categories. Sorry if I did anything wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.78.177 (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@74.129.78.177: Yes, not leaving an edit summary can cause reverting because your not explaining what you're doing. I have removed the warnings. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Simon and Garfunkel

Hi, I just saw your note re my proposed edit.

I attended Forest Hills HS in NYC, class of 1968, and am an active member of their closed FB alumni group. We discuss Simon and Garfunkel all the time. I've been informed by knowledgeable alumni that both graduated in 1958, not 1959. One member informed me last week that they are in the 1958 yearbook. Unfortunately, I do not have access to that reference. Wikipedia's Forest Hills HS page DOES list them as famous 1958 alums. Without knowing any of the above, I would have guessed 1959, because both were born in late 1941. Portland, OR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.232.216 (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@67.5.232.216: This is an Encyclopedia, we deal with verifiable facts, not your memory. Please study WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:RS. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 23:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Photo

Hi!

My Edit was changed and i don't know why. I Just wanted to put a better photo, Can You answer me please? Thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bekjoner (talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bekjoner: You need to gain consensus, see Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 23:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

st. anger

St. anger is no heavy metal, its nu metal with thrash metal elements. Norschweden (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Graduation Year Issue

The Forest Hills HS yearbook is online on the classmates.com website. Simon and Garfunkle's pictures are in the 1958 yearbook. Would the yearbook qualify as a cite? Rosattin (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rosattin: Please add your citation with your changes, see Help:Referencing, Mlpearc (open channel) 17:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: Thanks for the suggestion. I checked out the wiki help and added the cites. I'm trying to be bold. Rosattin (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit Help Por Favor!

Dear Mlpearc, Thanks for the info & welcoming a rookie! I'm looking forward to becoming a valued admin here on wiki. I attempted to add citations but for some reason, it's creating a hardship.. I was using the citation reference for url (referenced below), would you mind taking a look to make sure I'm good? Example: "Digest of Rules". National Football League. Retrieved 8 August 2016. True Citation: "The Earliest Days of the Electric Guitar". Rickenbacker International Corporation. Retrieved 9 August 2016. "Rickenbacker Ken Roberts Model Hollow Body Electric Guitar - An Important and Historical Instrument". Retrofret Vintage Guitars. Retrieved 9 August 2016. Data I'd like to input: By 1934 the company was renamed the Rickenbacker Electro Stringed Instrument Corporation. By early-mid 1935, Electro String Instrument Corporation had achieved mainstream success with the A-22 Frying Pan, and set out to capture a new audience through its release of the "Model B - Electro-Spanish" and the "Electro-Spanish Ken Roberts" which would earn the ranks as the first full 25" scale electric guitar ever produced. The Electro Spanish Ken Roberts provided players a full 25" scale, with 17-frets free of the fretboard. It is estimated, less than 50 Electro-Spanish Ken Roberts were constructed between 1933 - 1937.

@Guitarhistory: Here are some helpful links regarding References and Citations.

• Referencing for beginners
• Referencing for beginners with citation templates
• Inserting a reference
• Inline citations
• Verifiability
• Identifying reliable sources
• Reliable sources

Sources on pages of a living/deceased person(s) have stricter guidelines, the link below has more about that.

• Biographies of living persons (BLP)

If you're not certain about the reliability of a source, you can always ask for help regarding references here

• Reliable sources noticeboard

Hope this helps, happy editing Mlpearc (open channel) 03:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Simon and Garfunkel

Hello, I believe the 1958 Forest Hills HS yearbook "The Forester" is viewable at classmates.com. One of my FH Facebook group members posted the yearbook on our closed group page. I looked at it Monday. They are on pages 37 and 72, respectively. Also, Wikipedia's Forest Hills HS article lists both of them as famous alums from the class of 1958! I'm not going to bother with this again, although someone else might give it a stab. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.232.216 (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@67.5.232.216: You don't need to convince me, you need to add the reference with your edit on that page. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 17:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Question about the investiagation

Hi, how do I respond to the investigation? I don't believe I violated any Wikipedia policies but I'd like to discuss the issue. Thanks. Rosattin (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rosattin: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims
Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 19:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc I saw that section but it didn't talk about responding to the investigation. I think I've figured out where to comment. Rosattin (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hold on just a second!

You said I made an unconstructive edit to this article, but I have no recollection whatsoever of making that edit! I checked to see what kind of edit it was, and I can tell you, THAT WAS NOT ME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.16.207.143 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Which is why warnings for IP addresses are followed by the text If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices., as it was on your talk page. clpo13_(talk) 23:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting/Archive 6

I just noticed that you archived the four RfC sections, someone reverted you on the main talk page without removing the sections from the archives, and you re-archived using OCA, resulting in the same sections being archived twice. I have removed the duplicate portions; thought you might be interested to know. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

My reason regarding the Tom Kenny filmography article

The reason why I removed information from the Tom Kenny article is because a lot of it is vandalism (Tom Kenny had nothing to do with The Jetsons, Rugrats, Animaniacs, Pinky and the Brain, Arthur, The Proud Family and other cartoons he had no involvement with. There was no narrator in Rockin' with Judy Jetson, Jetsons: The Movie and the 1985–1987 Jetsons revival.). 47.33.87.79 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.