User talk:Edkollin

Welcome!

Hello, Edkollin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Jokestress 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commercial material to Wikipedia, as you did to Splatter film. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. (Diff) (Diff)

Would the event not be advertising and therefore acceptable after the event is completed? The reason for putting the event in was to show that an event devoted to this topic at the Museum of the Moving Image as would any event at that well known locale demonstrates some sort of cultural significance or acceptance. And please if you are going to warn give me the courtesy of your user name so I may reply Edkollin 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. re your message. I'm really sorry if you think I have been deliberately targeting your edits, maybe that is how it is coming across to you, but I can assure you that is not the case, I don't take note of who's edit it is. All I am trying to do on this biography article is keep it from having an overly negative slant. The press in the UK is absolutely appalling, they are well known for building people up and then take great delight in knocking them down. So I really haven't been targeting you in particular, just what I believe are non notable overly negative 'suspect' claims. Foreign press like ABC only repeat what the British press write. Same as say news articles on Britney Spears in the UK are just repeats of what the US press print. Personally I try to avoid at all costs tabloid articles especially on biography articles and use a rule of thumb, would an encylopedia include that information? Anyway, thanks for contacting me, best to get these things out in the open. All the best :) Sue Wallace (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you there. Just because an item of gossip/news appears on the internet/newspapers etc does not mean it should automatically go into a biographical article on wikipedia, it is up to us to be selective about what we include. The tour manager allegations have been in several British tabloids I can assure you, the main ones being The Sun and the Daily Mail. Regarding references in biographies, bio. guidelines clearly state that the most controversial statements should have 100% reliable sources, and that is what we should stick to whether it is someone we personally like or not. Believe it or not many, many groups and musicians have taken drugs but on their biographies you wont necessarily find much written about it, that is because it should not unduly weigh the article. I think we should add anything further on the article talk page. I hope we can reach an agreement because I don't like getting into conflicts with other editors, otherwise I will refer it to WP:BLP/N and let them decide. Sue Wallace (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with talk page and not wanting to get into conflicts Edkollin (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did a pretty good job. You can see I have already made changes. You can revise it on my user page. Tony0937 (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another mainstream media article about the "other side" of 9-11. http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2948e9ba-df6a-4785-9ba2-180a4720e918&p=1 I need to find the full text.Tony0937 (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=480683 Tony0937 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your efforts at consensus. I think it will take a while. There are a lot of good people in the world and it is my belief that you are one of them. Tony0937 (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, just wanted your imput on this, what do you think of the long UK album credit list on the Back to Black album page? I honestly think it ruins the whole article (which was looking so much better than it was, thanks to you in particular), so I removed it (being bold), citing it as unnecessary list-cruft, and it was re-instated immediately, I can't believe it, looked at loads of other album articles and none have huge ugly lists on theirs. Sue Wallace (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edkollin,
before removing the claim about Musharaf as suspect in the Bhutto assassination, I've read the NY Times article down and up, but could find any citation about that. However, following recent reports it seems to be "vapor ware" anyway: Al-Qaeda claims Bhutto killing, Al-Qaida bekennt sich zu Mord an Bhutto. A happy new year (no irony). -- Túrelio (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed - saw this comment about Michael Meacher. Agree with you he shouldn't be added. But I was curious to see you said "LIHOP, not "inside job"". I've always thought "inside job" includes LIHOP theories. Interestingly, the inside job article agrees with your definition ("committed by"), but dictionary.com agrees with mine ("committed by or in collusion with"). The line between LIHOP and MIHOP is very blurred I think, but the line between "inside job" and negligence/foreign involvement theories, is crystal clear - when insiders with foreknowledge made a conscious decision not to stop them. Be good to hear your thoughts on this. Corleonebrother (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So, using your example, it would be collusion ("inside job") if Shafig supported Osama's plans and told Bush so that he would stand-down security, defenses etc, but not collusion ("not inside job") if Shafig told Bush so that he would do something to stop it. I guess that makes sense - the chain of collusion being broken, as it were, by Shafig not colluding as well. So, my definition of the line between "inside job" and "not inside job" is wrong, it should be: when insiders with foreknowledge made a conscious decision not to stop them and there was collusion (i.e. a secret agreement between the "attacker" and insiders willing to help). I understand why you said "LIHOP, not inside job" now. Sorted.

However, I would say that both examples you give are LIHOP, since the attacks were not "made to happen" by the insiders in either case; they were Osama's idea and would have happened without insider help (though may not have been successful). I think MIHOP requires that the insiders said "Hey Osama, we've got something we'd like you to do...". So, if this is correct, some LIHOP theories are also "inside job" theories, while other LIHOP theories are not "inside job" theories. Damn, this is a complicated subject. Its all semantics of course and like you say, all treason. Corleonebrother (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I've taken the question of using sources such as The Sun and other British tabloid/gossip rags for additions to this article to the reliable sources noticeboard for advice on this issue. There is little reliable information in such publications and amount to little more reliability than the National Enquirer or other sensationalistic publications. Wikipedia has a responsibility in biographies of living persons to put forth only material that does not expose it to liability for its truthfulness. Additions such as the supposition that she may be divorcing him, gleened from The Sun, isn't reliable to publish. Please don't add what amounts to gossip, even if The Sun did print it. Additionally, as I note someone has brought up before, the addition of every aspect of the daily lives of Winehouse (and her husband) has a tendency to give it undue weight. The article is about Winehouse, her husband has no page on Wikipedia, so his every legal issue does not need to be reprinted here. It is our responsibility to present only completely factual biographies. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Amy Winehouse/The Sun & British tabloids regarding using The Sun and similar tabloids as sources for article inclusion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your desire to get things in articles as soon as possible, but I've been involved in other articles where attempts to use tabloid sources such as the National Enquirer, The Star, etc. were made and I knew that those sources weren't allowed on Wikipedia due to the unreliability of them and, as another editor commented, there were far too many cases wherein the tabloid admitted to making up stories, losing lawsuits because of it. I also know how stringent Wikipedia tries to be in avoiding liable from what is printed here in biographies of living persons. I guess my concern is to try and temper timeliness with long-term validity, as well as trying to avoid sensationalism and giving the daily lives of celebrities more weight than their performances.

I did edit the additions you made tonight. You may want to rephrase material from sources a bit more than what is in the articles as to avoid copyright issues. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may not agree with certain ways you want to edit the article but I have never questioned that your intent and I would expect that of you. I did not find that in these remarks ”I believe that the editor knows that tabloids aren't reliable but just wants to include every bit of info around”. Speaking of Wikipedia Guidelines that is a violation of Good Faith.

If you would re-check, those were not my words, they were left on my talk page by someone else. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There are larger issues about the article now. I'm trying to get someone to address what's happened, but so far, no one seems to want to take on a former administrator on behavior. Ah well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular contributor to the Amy Winehouse article, you are invited to join the editing process of the article's personal life and controversy sections, temporarily located here. For discussion on recent issues, go here. For current discussions, go here.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Edkollin,

I would welcome any improvements you could make to my proposal at Talk:9/11#Norman Mineta testimony issue !  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• More specifically: what contextual stuff were you referring to ?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More questions for you!  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support you when you would be making such edits and you were hindered unwarrented in doing so. Just call, e-mail if you need to. I myself prefer to concentrate on unbiasing the main 9/11 article!  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Edkollin, for your detailed clarification (following) regarding a Club Night. It makes perfect sense.

Thank you again, Designquest10 (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[You asked about this in the Amy Winehouse article. A club night and/or DJ night is an event that occurs in a night club. It has become the trendy thing for musicians to do in the last few years. They have a night where they play DJ. It is a marketing opportunity it can give them a little street credibility. It gives them an opportunity to expose musicians that they themselves are into. As for the article the BBC used the terminology so that is what should be used in the article. Edkollin (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)]

I noticed that when you add something to the Winehouse article, you often refer to her as "the singer," which is fine, but when it is in reference to something else, it should be a possessive case - "the singer's father", not "the singers father." Just wanted to let you know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might not realize it, but it is against policy to refactor or revise talk page additions by others. Would you please remove the insert you did on Pinkadelica's comment on the Winehouse talk page. It's fine to make an aside note below it, but by inserting it in her comment, it makes it appear it is part of her comment. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I didn't want it to create an issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comment on the reference I added to the Kate Bush page. I don't contribute much to Wikipedia -- I am too easily frustrated by the process, and don't really agree with some of the policies concerning strict NPOV etc. But also grateful to the people who wade in and make contributions, so it's very nice to hear that some information I supplied might be useful.

And yeah, of course I think Kate Bush is one of the greatest talents to rise during the 1980s -- saying a lot, since there were so many... StrangeAttractor (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to carry on - I won't be working on it tomorrow anyway. Some of the earlier stuff needs rewriting or removing as it concerns questions which were answered by the NIST (eg the presence of sulphur). Hut 8.5 15:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope I'm not intruding. I saw your edits to the Amy Winehouse article and thought you might be interested in her section on the celebrity gossip wiki, it could certainly benefit from some additions considering all the happenings there are that go on with her. Thanks and have a great day! --Ventimocha (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, we agree on more than one thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Just because we don't always agree doesn't mean we always disagree. That would define the spirit of collaboration. Happy New Year to you! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year from ME, too...ALSO without reservations.Fleaphone (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that doesn't have reliable sourcing can be removed on sight. If you find references to support the assertion that section makes, then feel free to add it back. Otherwise it violates Wikipedia policies. WesleyDodds (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the other editor hasn't come around for a couple days, has he lost interest? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is probably going to be a notable thing, if it's valid, it's a serious issue. Let's see what else comes up in the news about this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edkollin. Just an FYI - I don't want this to sound really bad, but some of your recent contributions to the Duffy (singer) page had spelling and grammar mistakes, which I've gone and fixed. If your browser has a spelling checking facility, it might be helpful to enable it so that it can help you find misspelt words (note that American dictionaries might flag British spellings as incorrect - in the case of the Duffy page, they are most likely to be correct so it is best not to correct those spellings).

Similarly with grammar - a number of sentences that were added were missing commas to help break up the sentence. If you need any help with that, give me a shout and I can try and help you. Hope you don't think I'm getting at you - I'm just trying to help you improve your contributions (which are much appreciated anyway!) ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 09:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your question on my talk page. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 22:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Wonky Pop, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonky Pop. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.    SIS  12:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, correct it. I thought the statement needed to be clarified a bit is why I reworded it. I missed the released vs. conducted part. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As debate over this seems endless a convenient place to look at it is helpfull

It's mainly the sources. One is a press release (you always want to avoid those) and the other is a site that can't be used as a reliable source. Even then, the impression I've always gotten was that The Cutting Edge was mainly a vehicle to promote I.R.S. artists. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of 9/11 conspiracy theories, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  09:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary associated with this edit indicates you're quoting a book or other source in your possession. Because the statement you re-added is largely opinion, and is uncited, it's likely to be removed again. Would you please add a cite to the source you're quoting from? TJRC (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added the cite. TJRC (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind there are hundreds of academics that support the movement to raise questions about what they say are contradictions in government claims. And, there are former heads of state, former military officials, and former intelligence officials, including Robert Baer, a CIA station chief in the middle east, and the basis of the movie Syriana.

The fact that the government claims (that they criticize as seeming contradictory) are not known to many people is one of the reasons people don't realize how interesting are those claims. In other words, the 911 truth movement seems strange to people who don't know about its scholarly side, the side that is not lambasted in US media.

Remember, in the US, many white citizens do not want to know about Tuskegee medical experiments, even though it is simple history. The same goes for wp:MKUltra and wp:Conintelpro.

The links in my next entry are probably a partial answer to your question.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These sources suggest that the reason so many people disagree about 911 is that they rely on different sources of information.

Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth http://www.journalof911studies.com/

The article called 14 Points is short easy reading, for academic writing, and starts this way:

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Alternative rock/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Invasion Just to say good job on the clean up. Keep up the good work.--Sabrebd (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I think that on June 7, you added information concerning Dale Bozzio's court case, and provided a reference. I checked the Boston Phoenix article, and found that Ms. Bozzio has filed an appeal. The information on the Missing Persons (band) page is now outdated.

Also, since it is a personal issue and not a band issue, would information about Dale Bozzio's court case be better kept in the Personal Life section of the Dale Bozzio page and not show in the Missing Persons (band) page? Doc2234 (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ed. I think you have made a serious error on the New Wave page (which you seem to think belongs to you). The article cites New Wave bands, which clearly have their origins in the early 1970s, and yet contradicts itself by saying New Wave emerged in the late 1970s. I tried to correct this, but for some reason which is not clear to me, you undid my corrections.--Donbodo (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ed. Thanks for your message. Regarding my citation of the Reynolds book, you must have a different edition. I have the original Faber and Faber edition, and the pages I cited are from the article on Talking Heads, whom I am sure you agree are New Wave. I found a copy of another edition at the library today, and the same passages were on pp. 159-160. Maybe that is the version you have. With regard to the origin of New Wave, I don't think there is any dispute among anyone that bands like Talking Heads, Devo, Patti Smith, and Television fall into the New Wave category. And all of these artists began playing their music prior to 1975, another fact beyond dispute. With that in mind, how can we say that New Wave did not emerge until the late 1970s? --Donbodo (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of Second British Invasion Artists, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Second British Invasion Artists. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ridernyc (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ed ! Since you and I seem to both agree on the fact that the New Wave list should include only artists from the late 70's and overall 80's era and no one else has expressed an opposite opinion and since you've recently removed contemporary artists such as Gwen Stefani or Julian Casablancas, don't you think we might as well take care of removing other contemporary acts still present in the list (such as Agent M, Cinema Bizarre or Mannequin Depressives) as of now ? I wanted your opinion before operating. CouchJarvis (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not only did i source most of the things I added, I added sources to things that didn't have them! and you take all my work away.

and i disagree with only including pre-90s new wave acts, because new wave is still a living evolving genre.

DriveMySol (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he US they are. Since the US is a big place and more importantly since reliable sources there do reference these acts as "New Wave" these acts should be on the list leaving the current note on top. Maybe the list can be split off into US and UK versions but this seems awkward.

I am confused. Where exactly am I supposed to copy this Nominating Post-Britpop?. Please answer on my talk page Edkollin (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be copied into the edit summary, see WP:ES for info on what that is. Now, you made the edit without including it in the edit summary [1], which isn't really any sort of problem. So don't sweat! Gabbe (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Post-Britpop you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Post-Britpop for eventual comments about the article. Well done! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you added was appropriate for the article, but it is a bit verbose. Could you possibly condense it down? I don't think a quote is needed in this circumstance. --Tarage (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable sources would be appropriate? Yes, there are as you say some good obscure acts which i have added who really are 'New Wave'. Other bands/artists i add may have been considered New Wave, or have certain songs classed as New Wave, so would these 1980's bands that have the 'New Wave sound' be eligible for the list? But it's a good almost thorough list with so many amazing bands on there Hiddenstranger (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove sourced information from Wikipedia articles as this violates Wiki policy. Your matter concerns the list of synthpop artists. Failure to adhere to this will result in a WP:ANI. CharlieJS13 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've just replied to your comment at talk:Synthpop. As a piece of advice, however - There is no need to shout, and on a second look, the section actually has numerous references (I don't know if you've added them, admittedly). Esteffect (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Edkollin! You are from New York? Is it possible to provide me with a copy of following?

http://clio.cul.columbia.edu:7018/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=5082330

• Anon. (1799): Obituary of James Bolton. Leeds Mercury or General Advertiser, Saturday, january 19th, vol. 32, no. 1668: p. 3

Holding: Butler Library, 535 West 114th St., New York, NY 10027

I only need a copy of page 3. If You can help me somehow, I will be very glad and thankful,

Kind regards, Doc Taxon (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you get a moment could you take a look at the recent changes to British Invasion. I honestly have no idea what the editor is trying to do, perhaps you can understand it, I may be missing something important. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I undid your addition to Cloudbusting. Neither the blog nor the comments mentioned Sutherland. It is possible there was an interview mentioned on that blog at an earlier date. I searched for various combinations of "Suicide Girls", "2006", "Kate Bush" and "Sutherland" but did not find anything. Could you check URL for your source? I am interested in the background here (I recall Bush being vague about getting Sutherland) so I am now going through some Bush interviews on YouTube to find what she might have said. -84user (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In the YouTube video "Kate Bush Interview about Cloudbusting #2" at 3:20 Bush explains a bit about how they contacted Sutherland, but no more details than "we got in touch with him, and sent him the script". And then I found the gaffa web site's collection of Bush quotes has a quote from what appears to be a VH-1 Interview, either 1989 or 1990:

"So we did actually approach his agent, who immediately said no, he couldn't because he's just too busy. But a friend of ours knew a friend of his, who asked him, and he gave us three days of his time in between shooting two other films." The full transcript is here. -84user (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ledernacken requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, so I can't delete it myself; however, I've tagged it so that someone can. Consider it done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome Edkollin (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Nice work on the new section.--SabreBD (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, Sources are Promotional and user generated websites thus unreliable but. I have to politely disagree. 2 of the sources are not promotional but published books. 45 revolutions is indeed a wonderful hardback edition, thoroughly researched - they are not promotional, generated websites, but the sources are physical editions. Please could you retract your comment? Very best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.116.162 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I politely revised the warning to just include the external links and dropped the citation warning for them on the List of New Wave artists. Edkollin (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Ed, Change unreliable warning to be more specific so it does not mislead reader into thinking the books are misleading I'm getting confused here Ed - The sources are indeed reliable - I've checked the reliability critea and it looks ok - don't no what you want - Should the references be in the External links section? Please can you help - as all is getting very confused - Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.116.162 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The books are seem fine and I took the warnings off . The Discogs and last.fm are not fine. Last.Fm is a wholly user generated site. Another words we don't know who is writing the article or what fact checking if any took place. Discogs is a promotional website. It purpose is not academic or journalistic. John Peel's wiki is a very reliable source so I will again change the warnings to see if that helps and use him as a source in the New Wave List. A warning does not mean every source in the section or article is unreliable. Just that the reliability of many of the sources in the section/article is being questioned. The larger problem as noted by another editor who put up a warning for it is none of the statements in the article is tied to the source. And editor trying to verify a claim in the article will have to go through every source. Edkollin (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed - kind thanks for taking time to help with this. people like you make wikipedia reliable and great. Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.116.162 (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, have a good weekend Edkollin (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete cition for Alizee and Reinstituted Citation Warning. 1. Source never claimed she was synthpop 2. Itunes is a promotional website and therefore not considered reliable.)"

The source claimed she is "electropop", besides, did you even to listen to the album?

Go onto her website http://alizee-officiel.com/home/, there you will find a link to iTunes.

You will find a list of her songs, such as her UNE ENFANT DU SIECLE songs, click on any of them, and it will take you to a page where it obviously says "Electronique".

Or here she says she wanted to go electro:

http://www.rtl.be/videos/video/145223.aspx

Bolegash (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I discuss why and how I proceeded in the Post Punk talk page. Not sure I did the "unmerge" the correct way. Edkollin (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look later. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the New Music (music industry), and updated it with your edits in New Music (1980s music terminology), and then redirected New Music (1980s music terminology) to New Music (music industry). This preserves the editing history. I can change the name to New Music (1980s music terminology) if you feel that is more appropriate.

Though I have restored the article, I do question the notability of this term. I had a look in various music sources and found no use of the term. I did find people talking about "new music", but that applies to music of varying periods, not just the one defined in the article. Two of the sources cited do not use the term as defined. The article appears to rely on one source by one author; I find this quite dubious. It's also difficult as the source is print only. Giving it the benefit of the doubt I thought it helpful to move the material to the nearest parent article to expose it to more editors and see how it developed there; but perhaps it would be more appropriate to look closer at the notability issue. I am inclined to take the article to AfD to get a wider opinion, but would like to get more details first, as I may be wide of the mark here, and just not seeing the notability. Do you have any other sources that use the term "New Music" in the way described in the article? And can you confirm the usage of the term - is it "New Music", "New music" or "new music"? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A GA review of Synthpop has started, and is now on hold to allow contributors time to address the issues raised so far. Details are on the review page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High fives all around and many thanks for all your efforts and support.--SabreBD (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, it's a pleasure. Thanks for noticing! I, too, have the page on my watchlist, so I watch out for any additions of unsourced and/or red-linked artists. SnapSnap 22:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that factmag.com is considered a "publicity website"? FACT magazine seems fine to me. SnapSnap 16:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you expressed interest in providing access to the relevant Wikipedia articles during the blackout, and since technical difficulties and lack of interest seem to have indicate this won't be done on Wikipedia, I've initiated a project to preserve those articles at Wikibooks.

I invite you to contribute to improving the Wikibooks stable versions (mostly trying look nice and focusing them on the information people will need), and to provide the link to anybody you know with questions about the blackout.

The full link can be found here: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_and_the_Internet

Regards, Quintucket (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hi. When you recently edited Friends of Abe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Networking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited American rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Flag (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Closings and cancellations following the September 11 attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valdez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could I nominate Adele (singer) for GA? I've done some improvements and copyediting. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation and you can do with it what you want, I'd leave the GA nominating for the primary editors. Tomtomn00's 'improvements' actually added some pretty bad refs. (see his talk page). Also, I noticed that he mentioned "expand" in one of his edit summaries. It's really not expanding if you're simply pasting paragraphs back in that you'd just removed (removed, replaced) Wikipelli ^Talk 21:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am now Thine Antique Pen... Give me 72h to fix up refs and things. Oh and sorry for that, my normal response is expanded, even though it is 'copy-paste'. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 21:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's good.. because otherwise, you know.. people might think you're trying to mislead them into believing that there was an actual expansion. Wikipelli ^Talk 21:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your sentiment as my experience is identical: the correlation between IP users and unconstructive/problematic edits is very highly significant; but I am not sure that it is necessary to semi-protect each and every article. I remember a talk where it was explained that IP users contribute by far most of the content, while editors with accounts tend to work on the details (I'm not trying to play the importance of this kind of work down: in fact, almost all of my own edits probably qualify as of the Wikignome type! It is very rare that I add actual content, and I mark most of my edits as minor); but if I recall correctly, that was in 2004, early history as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and the fact that our standards for content are now much higher are not even the most crucial difference in this context. The main difference is that even many articles on quite significant (and attractive) topics were still so short back then that they would be classified as stubs today. Nowadays, there are virtually no quasi-stubs left for IP editors to expand, except from articles on utterly obscure concepts. Therefore, the danger that excluding IP editors would result in the loss of countless valuable contributions is much lower nowadays than it was back then: it is a sad fact that useful IP edits are becoming more and more of a rarity, and productive IP edits that are not minor have become so exceptional that you could possibly make a list to chronicle and highlight every single one of these celebration-worthy events. The signal-to-noise ratio for IP edits has become so low that the trade-off of semi-protection is often highly positive overall. However, there are articles (many of them already semi-protected) where this circumstance is more pronounced, and articles (often those on obscure topics) where drive-by vandalism by bored schoolkids or problems with POV warriors are virtually non-existent. There is a case to be made that it would still be very useful to protect these articles, exactly because they are obscure and thus are not going to be monitored much, but the need for protection is far less urgent and immediate/acute there. Therefore, I think while it would be highly sensible to (semi-)protect by default all those large, well-developped (possibly even close-to-good or close-to-featured) and prominent (much edited) articles that Wikipedians are just tired of monitoring for trivial IP nonsense or even more malicious manipulation, smaller and more obscure articles are going to be considered less worthy of protection, and these are also more likely to attract occasional productive edits, thanks to a more favourable signal-to-noise ratio.

In my opinion, however, the obvious solution is not semi-protection: rather, it's the tried-and-true (on other Wikipedias) approach of flagged protection (and variants), preferrably for all articles. You get the advantages of semi-protection, but with a decreased danger of losing productive IP edits. Bored schoolkids and POV warriors are incredibly discouraged by the lack of instant gratification, as the immediate feedback on the English Wikipedia is what makes careless editing so attractive. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are substantially more articles to review nowadays, are there enough people to review the articles so that the editors who are legitimately testing the waters are not discouraged by lengthy article review times? Not only "bored school kids" but pretty much everybody expects instant results on their devices these days. Edkollin (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I can only go from the experience at German Wikipedia which indicates that the system works without intolerably large delays, and in any case, IP users who edit an article can be informed by an automatic message that their edit will be recorded but won't be displayed before it is reviewed and that this can take some time (I'm not sure if that isn't exactly what already happens on German Wikipedia anyway, given that I've never intentionally edited without logging in and the few times I have done so accidentally seem to have been on talk pages, or in English Wikipedia). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

We've been confused with an issue regarding the origins of alternative rock with another user and currently we are not able to reach a proper concensus. Our debate continues on our talk pages [2] [3] and unfortunately we're yet to carry on this debate on the talk page of alternative rock. Please feel free to join us to reach to a consensus. I thought that you could be interested as you made major edits on the page prior to the discussion.

Thank you, Myxomatosis75 (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

New Music (music industry) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Faggot

New Wave music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Faggot

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bath School disaster is already referenced in the article's lead paragraph. Per WP:MOS, it is against guidelines to have it also appear within the 'See also' section. Shearonink (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Wave music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 3-D (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Wave music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classic Rock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Disco Talk Page Edkollin (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[4]

I understand that swiss lips may not be notable, but if you feel that they aren't, you are free to nominate it for deletion but such a comment would not be professional/encyclopedic for the article.Curb Chain (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel they might be notable for article but not for that particular list. Since there is no way to put a notable comment on anything that is not an article thought a comment would be a good idea. But since being nice apparently is unencyclopedic I just deleted it. Edkollin (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, lists list articles we have; they have the advantage of allowing citations to be listed as well compared to categories. Is the article a redirect? Why is it not an article?Curb Chain (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, lists or music genre lists particularly are the pits of Wikipedia where everybody adds whatever they feel like without regard to Wikipedia guidelines but because they think this group belongs or maybe the act had one song is of the genre. There is no redirect of anything involved with this. The list of synthpop acts has been somewhat of an exception to this editing anarchy. A small group of editors do watch after it and delete new edits where there are no reliable sources in the groups or solo musicians Wikipedia article listing them as synthpop or a subgenre of synthpop. They also check to see if an act is notable to synthpop, not some person promoting their friends act at the local club as is seemingly common. An act can be notable enough to have their own article but not be notable enough to the synthpop genre to be listed. There is a warning for lack of citations for a whole article, a section or inline. For unreliably sourced articles there is a warning, an there is an inline unreliability warning for sentences. If you feel an articles topic is not notable you may put up a statement at the beginning of the article. There is no inline notability warning. There is no way outside of making a comment to question whether an act is notable enough to the topic of the list. Why is ^{[unreliable source?]} encyclopedic and Notable? not? Edkollin (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alternative rock may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Image:Alex Kapranos.jpg|alt=Two thirds body shot of singer with short brown hair, wearing a black

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at WP:BRD and WP:3RR; you have reinserted text cited to a laypress report of a primary study on rats, that breaches WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT (news) and WP:RECENTISM without discussing the addition on talk after it was removed once. [5] [6]

=

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Invasion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Post-punk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kill the King (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terrorism in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Louis County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ed Kollin, for your edits, placing the Charleston shooting as terrorism.

Would you mind also adding this to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015 ?

I don't feel qualified enough to be the one to insert this information on the page. I want to make sure information is given with credibility and authority (I'm white) Tenor12 (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Acid rock—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. --MASHAUNIX 12:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]