User talk:CapitalLetterBeginning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Allan Hobbs

Hi, please remember that encyclopedia articles need to have serious claims of encyclopedic notability--thus, I've deleted

welcome to Wikipedia. Meelar (talk)
16:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

User pages

It is best not to edit other people's user pages if you want to be taken seriously here. And no, the number isn't meant as an invitation. :) --Etacar11 19:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe... The worst part is that I thought I was being witty, only to discover afterwards that pretty much the same joke had already been done. Apologies. --CapitalLetterBeginning 21:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gorillaz

I have been debating whether it'd be better to have a singles subsection under discography AND a "Chart Positions" section or just continue on the way I have been. As of now I think my current path is the better choice, but I may change my path once I'm finished with research.

The reason I put the US charts first is because they are a better representation of the popularity of a single (granted the UK only singles make it a little tough, though). The problem with the UK chart is it is only based on digital and physical sales whereas the US chart is based on the sales and airplay. Because of this, singles remain on the US charts for as long as they are popular, whereas on the UK chart they fall off after so many people have purchased them, even though they may still be gaining popularity. Xinger 15:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hangman

Wow, that is an amazing guess. I'd be simply amazed if it is ineed correct! --lightdarkness (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, thanks... I suppose I was only almost correct really, seeing as Ian was looking for "on" rather than "in". --CapitalLetterBeginning 18:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May Street Project

Just wanted to thank you for updating Shea Seger's album page. It looks very nice! (I started the article; actually it was one of the first things I did on Wiki. Now maybe all that's left to be done is list the American singles with release dates. --Brian1979 12:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know it's appreciated :). Don't have any info re: US singles, I'm afraid, but I'll look into it. --CapitalLetterBeginning 23:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Lightfoot album numbering

Hi. I noticed you renumbered the Gordon Lightfoot album pages. Sunday Concert was included in the numbering and will continue to be included as, despite being a live album, a majority of the material is actually original. Hence, why the number was "x original album". I have reverted to reflect how it was before and have changed the categories you added accordingly. As you can see from this link Harmony is generally considered to be his 20th release. Sunday Concert is counted for the reasons I've already mentioned. Cheers. Shadow007 15:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I'd just assumed it was a misnumbering because I saw a few songs on Sunday Concert that I recognised as having been on studio albums. Thanks for the explanation. --CapitalLetterBeginning 18:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's cool mate. Normally live albums wouldn't be counted, but Sunday Concert isn't a regular live album in that it contains a lot of previously unreleased tracks. Cheers. Shadow007 01:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums by number categories up for deletion

Categories for albums numbered third to fourteenth in Cat:Albums by number have been placed on CfD. Given your significant contribution to these categories, I thought you might have a stake in the discussion here. –Unint 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analord

Sorry mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.181.236 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. --CapitalLetterBeginning 13:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback re 'Cringe humor' page plz

What are your thoughts on this page and it's candidacy for deletion? (see discussions at below links plz)

[Cringe_humor]

[Cringe_humor]

[Speedy_deletions#Cringe_humor]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirk Diggler Jnr (talk • contribs) 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, I'm inclined to agree with the proposed deletion. Though the comedians it covers may be notable, that doesn't make the site itself notable. Thanks for making me aware of the site though :) --CapitalLetterBeginning 18:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Question

Why do the Brits get new music releases on Monday and the States on Tuesday?

Fantailfan 21:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Hehe, no idea! Well actually, I think new releases coming out on Mondays in the UK is related to the fact that the sales charts are compiled on Sundays – so to ensure the highest possible position in the charts, record companies release on the earliest day possible in the week. Then again, I may have that completely backwards and charts are compiled on Sundays because of a previously established convention of Monday releases. As for the US, I really don't have a clue... I'm sure I remember reading an explanation of the rationale behind Tuesday releases somewhere, but unfortunately can't recall any actual details.
Anyhoo, if you find out the answer, please tell me as I'm curious to know as well! --CapitalLetterBeginning 02:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


PopMatters

Hi. I don't think you should be italicising instances of

MoS:T. Thanks. --CapitalLetterBeginning 14:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi, Thanks for your note. Italics are used on the basis that it is a periodical/magazine. Our article describes it as such, do you think that's OK?
10 September 2006
(GMT).
It's touched on on the talk page. Webcomics, it seems, are italicised. I'm happy to leave PopMatters for now though.
10 September 2006
(GMT).
Cheers. --CapitalLetterBeginning 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REM

Albums came out on Mondays in the US until about 1988 when the US release dates shifted to Tuesdays. I'm also going by the chart entry dates in Billboard. If an album was released tomorrow, for instance, it would enter the album chart for the week ending October 14th. Document, for instance, entered the week ending September 26, 1987, which puts its release date back to Sept 7 (the Monday of that week).

BGC 17:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Spam - Autechre

You requested a block I have declined as the spammer appears to have been blocked please list IP at

WP:AIV if it reappears. Gnangarra 14:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Losing My Religion

I'm not sure when February 27th occured in 1991, so I can't say if it was on a Monday or not. But it's best to go with what can be referenced. Who's Rob Jovanovic? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stick with the date listed in the R.E.M. bio. We can always look for another source to confirm one date or the other. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Black bio, actually. It's the R.E.M. biography with the most involvement from the band. That and the Buckley book (which features heavy imput from Mills and Buck, but not Stipe) would be the primary sources for any R.E.M. article. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All other books I have only list the month. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. In fact I've been thinking only the US date is really relevant. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


CORN MOUTH

Hello there, mate.

Might I ask why you changed the track Corn Mouth into Carn Marth? I've been to various websites and that track is clearly listed as Corn Mouth. --James599 (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I should have mentioned in my edit note. See
the talk page, specifically Slicing's message at 02:01 10 November 2005 UTC and Cparker's message at 19:21 25 February 2006 UTC, for discussion of this. See also Bleep's listing for the album. --CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Right. Thanks for the information. Cheers! --James599 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Sweet Editing Of Yours

We're all your citing requests to

talk) 22:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

"For a minute there I lost myself". My apologies. --

The Legendary Sky Attacker
01:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Many Big Thanks To You!Hi there! Thanks for correcting my (many) mistakes on Meeting People Is Easy! Sometimes I go through all the info too fast and leave stuff out, so thanks again. One thing that I did notice though... in the citations, you italicised both "San Francisco Chronicle" and "Entertainment Weekly", but not the other publishers' names, like Rotten Tomatoes or Independent Film Channel. Why is that? I'm just curious, is all :)

Next I'll be working on

In Rainbows - From the Basement. I'd love it if you read over the articles after I'm done with them! TheTwoRoads (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you. The italicisation is as prescribed by the
Wikipedia Manual of Style: newspaper and magazine names are among the things that should be italicised; television channel, publishing group and website names are not. There's some grey area here, as certain websites are referred to as "magazines". If in doubt when editing, check the Wikipedia article on the subject to see whether it's italicised there!
I'll take a look at the two articles you mention when I get the chance, which will probably be later today :) –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: Natalia VodianovaUS v. UK spelling - I don't care actually. I suggest U.S. spelling since that is currently the largest English language audience. Your call, I'll respect your choice.

the Cite Web tag for |work - This article cites websites primarily, not printed publications. Although I understand what you are doing with the work tag, it is not appropriate to list the work as "Forbes" or "New York" magazine because that indicates the printed edition of Forbes or New York, neither of which are a source of the citations. Since no Wikipedia article exists for the online versions of most of these publications, I support linking to the wikipedia article for the printed version. At any rate, the cite web tag means to cite the online work. If you want to cite the printed publication, then you need to get an actual printed copy and create a proper citation for printed media.

The Cite Web tag for |publisher - The work and the publisher are not interchangeable. The work is the larger body of which the article is a part, so forbes.com, nymag.com, etc. The publisher is the legal owner of the intellectual property that is being published (the copyright holder), for example Forbes.com LLC or NYMag.com. In the offline world, that might be, for example, |work=Moby Dick |publisher=Little, Brown and Co.

I am using as references:

Wikipedia:Cite Web http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_web Wikipedia:Citing_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

If you believe differently or would like me to elaborate I am happy to discuss this further.

Ch Th Jo (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments on my talk page. The comments below respond to your comments there. (The above was written before reading your comments.)

Regarding work v. publisher - The reference you sent me to includes the following text - "Usually you use one or the other, though sometimes you may use both if the company that publishes a periodical is different from the work itself." That statement seems to support the citations I have created in many cases since the publisher often is not identical to the title of the work. To expand, CondéNetUK Limited is the legal entity that owns the intellectual property available at vogue.co.uk. Although there are times that the publisher = the work, my experience is that for the most part that is not the case when dealing with large media companies.

Regarding work - The citation you referenced on my talk page doesn't seem too clear about what one should use as the name for the "work". For example - vogue.co.uk? Vogue (UK) website? Forbes.com? Forbes Website? The title that appears at the top of the browser? The page you reference suggests that we avoid re-using the URL, but doesn't get too specific. I am open to your input here.

As I said on your talk page, UK v. US spelling isn't important to me nor per the Wikipedia guidelines you reference. However, you seem to be expressing an -opinion- that metric measurements should precede imperial (whatever the correct term is) because Vodianova is a European living in the UK. I don't agree with that logic. Natalia Vodianova's home (primary) agency is DNA Models in New York. Her primary source of revenue is probably from U.S. based clients. The largest audience for this article is (stastically) in the U.S. and that -is- pertinent. The article isn't written for Natalia, it is written for the users of Wikipedia. At this time, more users access Wikipedia from the U.S. blah, blah, etc. You and I could go 'round and 'round and never hit a definite end point or we can come to a compromise. I am interested in compromise and I'd like to hear your ideas.

Undo - Obviously, we can't stop others from doing whatever they want, but I will hold off on "undoing" the changes under discussion until you and I have had a change to figure out a reasonable course of action. I do have one change to make, but it is the addition of new information and I believe the information itself is a helpful addition and non-controversial from your perspective.

Ch Th Jo (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radiohead - Karma Police (CD2).jpg listed for deletion

CfD nomination of Category:Pharrell albums

Vogue Templates

In this case, not voting is essentially voting against since they will be deleted without your vote, but would likely be kept with your vote in support. Thus, someone without a "a strong opinion" who is one of the few involved in the editing of the page is making a strong statement of sorts by not voting.--
WP:LOTM) 02:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Influential

Yes, I know that; I'm the one that corrected your spelling from "influencial" to "influential". You undid that. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a second time, where you claim to have "already cheched [sic] the spelling". –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

No problem, I'm glad you're pleased with the changes. By the way, you may want to check out
WP:REFNAME for a brief guide on how to cite the same source multiple times in a single article without unnecessarily repeating the footnote. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Radiohead - Just (CD2).jpg listed for deletion

Scratch My Back: Release date for Mainland Europe

Thanks ;-) – IbLeo(talk) 17:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Frank Black albums

Reviews for Plastic Beach

Fair enough. I'd argue, though, that music reviews are subjective by nature; people won't be looking at the reviews section on a Wikipedia album article to find out more objective information about an album. Putting Slant aside, it wasn't clear at all why you'd removed the Times review and replaced it with the New York Times one, so an explanation in the edit note would have been helpful. Thanks. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I'm aware that the search function doesn't cover page histories, but I removed those discussions without archiving them because they didn't really belong on the talk page anyway. That particular talk page was attracting a lot of comments along the lines of "Hey, [historical figure] should be higher on the list!!!", which are totally missing the point of an article talk page and treating it as a general forum. I suspected that the fact that there were already a lot of comments of this nature on the talk page was encouraging further users to add similar comments, so that's what motivated the removal. I don't really see any value in retaining these discussions in an archive page as they are raising users' issues with the subject itself rather than the article, but I have no objection to it either. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they were just flame-bait on the talk page, and diking them from there was a Good Thing.
It's just that I get nervous when people decide to 'edit' content out of talk pages - you might have a plausible case in this particular case, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and it's a bad precedent to set because someone else might then decide to edit out something for slightly less good reasons; repeat a few times (with slightly poorer rationale each time) and we're in troubled waters.... Noel (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for U.K. spelling info

I'm afraid I can't offer you a useful answer as I just don't know! It could well be that it's the preferred spelling among the s(c/k)eptic community for whatever reason – perhaps the influence of
The Skeptic (although their website seems to use sceptic when not referring to the magazine itself). It may even be the case that the sk- spelling is supplanting the sc- spelling in general UK usage, but quick Google searches for the two different spellings on the sites of a few major UK newspapers suggest otherwise. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
You are so sweet for looking to find out. I just found this which seems to be an answer for that particular organization. Thought I'd toss it your way in case you run across this in the future. Based on that answer, I'd venture a guess that there will be times when the American spelling will be appropriate for a U.K. based article (though my edit was not one of them). Again, thanks for the info. Happy editing! Millahnna (mouse)talk 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: