User talk:Foetusized

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Foetusized, and welcome to Wikipedia! It's nice to see familiar faces here.

Here are some pages that were recommended to me as potentially helpful:

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 or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --orlady 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Love

It's irresposible to talk about Cobain's death without mentioning the autopsy which determined that he had 1.51 mg of heroin per liter of blood.

Even if you are a Courtney Love fan and respect her this fact must be represente on wiki.

How you can respect her is beyond me but I respect your loyalty.

please go to www.cobaincase.com and www.justiceforkurt.com and explore those websites.

Much respect,

Paul

I'm not acting out of loyalty or respect for Ms. Love (I am not a fan), but out of respect for the rules of Wikipedia. Perhaps you should learn and start following those rules too, starting with WP:BLP - Foetusized (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Technology at ETSU

Do you really feel it is necessary to document a change in back end technology? Remember, all public schools in Tennessee are converting to these new systems and more. I'm at MTSU, and we just changed to Banner, D2L and another classroom app, and changed the entire grade/data back end; I still see no point in mentioning any of that in the article. This is just routine operations. The ETSU article is tenuous as it is...I would strongly suggest removing this particular section and flesh out additional and more varied facets of the school. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 11:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to keep the content, but it was worse when it was grafted onto the end of a paragraph on the history of the school. Moving it to a paragraph on its own was a meant to be a temporary improvement, but I've been too busy to give it a second look. Now that I have, I'm deleting it, since you agree with it being marginal at best - Foetusized 04:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bauhaus

The thing about the Bauhaus article is that I was working through the Shirley book first, then planning to switch to my NME and Melody Maker article reprints for sourcing, which is why the Shirely book is used so much. I don't get why the "one source" tag was added given I also cited Simon Reynolds' Rip It Up and Start Again. Definitely cite other useful sources if you have them, but there's no need to add multiple footnotes to cite one item. You only need to cite a fact once. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

My apologies to you for the fact that the Johnson City article has been the recipient of unproductive attentions (addition of fact templates) from someone whose actual intent apparently is to harass me. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Flurry of apparently related anonymous (possible open proxy) edits. --Orlady (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I was able to add a couple of citations to the JC article (using the situation to improve the article), with sufficiently sarcastic editor notes. I can't find a good cite about the location for the "Rag Doll" video, other than I can watch the video and recognize the locations. There's also a painted Aerosmith logo with date, on a power supply box inside Freedom Hall, left behind by the road crew. I could always go snap a photo ;-) -- Foetusized (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo

Nice followup.[1] I think we can maybe get the article to GA status sometime in the not too distant future.
Cheers! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pompertown

I've blocked this user indefinitely, not for this latest edit war, but for the consistent history of doing nothing but revert with little/no explanation. I have no position on the actual subject of your disagrement, so if someone else comes along and thinks they liked his version better, this isn't a free pass to revert them with no discussion; please try to start a discussion with any new editor if they show up preferring his version, and assume it isn't the same user unless they start reverting with no discussion too.

I'm not going to warn you for edit warring, since you came nowhere near 3RR, and others agreed with you and reverted him too. Just noting that perhaps the "perfect world" solution would have been for you to start a discussion with other editors about the edit in question, which you could point to as "consensus" in your re-adding the material he removed. Perhaps that's a little too utopian in dealing with a disruptive editor, but I was slightly disappointed to see all that reverting going on with no talk page thread (at least that I noticed, apologies if I just missed it).

So hopefully that should improve the editing environment at the article. --barneca (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the last six edits on Talk:Backstreet Boys, trying to get some discussion going about the improvements I was trying to make in the article. I tried directing Pompertown there in my edit comments, posted in their talk page, but I never got any response, other than unexplained reverts of my edits. Thanks for your help -- Foetusized (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backstreet Boys

Hey, I dropped by the BSB article today and noticed you've been working towards improving it. As time goes by, info that used to be easy to get drops off the net and reliable sources for "older" info get harder and harder to find. I used to be a fan and still have a pile of magazines and books. Would some hard-copy article scans be helpful? I mean, I know there's a better source for Sam Licata and Charles Edwards than an old fansite. :) I'm not in the fandom anymore, but I know there's enough good info out there in the world to take this article to FA status. My hands are full and my passion for BSB is low, but I'd be happy to pass info on to someone who might be able to use it. I haven't looked at it in years so maybe all I have is junk, but I can find out. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians...

Hi Foetusized, as a significant contributor to the article, you might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guggi

The link added to the some bizzare double album was incorrect. The Guggi it was linked to is an Irish painter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumfloof (talk • contribs) 07:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. The Discogs page for the album led me to believe the track was by the Guggi who has a Wiki article (who was a member of The Virgin Prunes before he became a painter) instead of a different musician (apparently from Greece) using the same name -- Foetusized (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tooth of Crime (album)

No worries man, any additions to the article is much appreciated. I just uploaded the cover photo. Thanks! --PM - PhilyG ^talk 23:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please read WP:RS before making further edits to the article and be aware that edit warring is blockable. Digital spy is not more respected than a published newspaper. You are more than welcome to find another source and we can display both figures in a neutral manner. However replacing a good newspaper source with a bloggish website is not acceptable. If you need advise on what is or isn't considered reliable I will happily help you. — Realist² 21:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one edit warring, with multiple reversions to the same way-too-high sales figures. I have found a reliable source, direct from the band itself, with a much more realistic figure, and have added that to the article. If you need advise on what is or isn't a realistic, uninflated sales figure for international sales for a music act, I will happily help you -- Foetusized (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down, there was a confusion between albums and records is all, it's nothing to get angry about. :-) — Realist² 21:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also a reliable source has nothing to do with the figure itself, it's about who is making the claim. Many people confuse what is meant by "reliable sources". When we talk about reliability we mean "who" is making the claim, not "is the claim believable". I hope that clears any confusion. — Realist² 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but a "reliable source" making an unbelievable claim should still be questioned. There is no agency that audits claims of "worldwide sales" so any such claims are usually estimates and should be taken with many grains of salt -- Foetusized (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what seems unbelievable to you might not be unbelievable to someone else, then we are dealing with a point of view which isn't allowed, see the problem? It is not our place to question what a reliable source says I'm afraid, many don't get that, it was hard for me to at first. Wikipedia isn't about what's fair or even what's true. It's about reporting what reliable sources say. We, as mere mortals, are not allowed to question them, it's not our place. That is a potential flaw in Wikipedia, but it's reality. — Realist² 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing the first paragraph of Backstreet Boys to include both sales figures, for albums and for all records (including singles) -- Foetusized (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. — Realist² 21:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxi Priest

Further to your explanation in your edit summary on the above, I just wanted to explain the two reasons why I reverted the removal of the EL by other users and to ask for your thoughts. Firstly, it kept being removed without any explanation, initially by an IP user, then by a registered user, and despite reqests to provide a reason, none was made. It was then, not clear whether it was vandalism or not. I understand and fully support the guidelines on external links. However, on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the section WP:NOTLINK it says, "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article," and continues, "On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate." The website being linked to seems to contain a lot of information and seems to be, to me anyway, a major fansite with useful content-relevant links (it has sections on biography, discography, songs, videos, live, lyrics, interviews, pictures, links etc) and so perhaps it is appropriate? I would welcome your views? Thank you.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

(moved from http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:207.237.33.36)

Asking me not to edit war whilst repeating the same removal of content from an article within hours (diff and diff) strikes me as bad form. Actions speak louder than words -- Foetusized (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that 2 days previous, I kept good form and suggested talk before I removed the content. That's good action. Thanks for noticing. (And your snotty post on MY talk page strikes me as frustration that you'd lose the 3RR. So sad.) 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newsboys

Thanks for catching the mess in the GO Remixed section. I don't mind standardizing dates on the international English date standard, but you missed the one in the paragraph that starts "The band's latest radio hits came in 2006", which uses a wiki date. I would prefer to see all in that format. Thanks again for the change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to me which date format is used. It was having several different date formats in the same article that I found annoying -- Foetusized (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robeson

Hi, the New Age was an African American paper. It was not the South African one you spoke of. Thanks. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-meetup Nashville on Labor Day weekend!

July 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New Order. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JD554 (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Please see my latest post at Talk:New Order -- Foetusized (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Order

How dare you sir!, Morris and Cunningham haven't announced they won't carry on ;-) Re the Mojo article, I'll have a look tonight in a newsagent and see if I can get a page and issue number for a citation. Cheers, --JD554 (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't know, there's just no convincing some people. Hopefully with the citation that may be the end of it ... but I don't think I'll be holding my breath. --JD554 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry (band) edit

Yeah, I know that Cover Up is Ministry's "last album". I own it. I was being sarcastic by typing badly like that. But is it really their (and I mean that lightly. the "their") last album? You do realize that Jourgensen has since released a lousy live album and will be releasing yet another pointless remix album of Ministry's so-called farewell album?

What I'm trying to say is that since the release of The Last Sucker, "Ministry's" "farewell" album, there have been (or will be) three additional releases since then, over an almost two year time period. Funny, huh? Cover Up is more like a compilation to me anyways, since it includes some previously released songs (including two from when Ministry were still good). So really, Cover Up may not be a geniune studio album. It's a cover album for God's sake. Plus, The Last Sucker has usually been referred to as "Ministry's" (it ain't Ministry to me without Paul Barker (although I do like Twitch)) farewell album. You call Cover Up their last, even though two more have come out since then. Confusing, no? I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say, hold on

The Last Sucker (Ministry's "farewell" album, 2007)
Cover Up (Ministry's REAL(?) farewell album, contains cover songs, including three previously released ones, 2008)
Adios... Puta Madres (Minsitry's NEXT(??) farewell album, a live album compiled from the C-U-LA-TOUR (dumb name, no?), also released on DVD, 2009)
The Last Dubber (Remix album of Ministry's "farewell" album, The Last Sucker (originally released in 2007), 2009)

So, what's REALLY their last album, hmm? Speaking in terms of studio albums, the last two don't count, BUT, I still don't see Cover Up as being the same as Ministry's previous releases. Sure, most of the covers were newly recorded, specifically for the release, but that's all they are. Cover songs. Bad cover songs. So really, The Last Sucker is supposed to be their last album, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN THREE OTHER RELEASES SIN-*head explodes*

Damn you, Jourgensen. --Roman Dog Bird (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured that out after my edit comment.

I went to the Ministry discography article and discovered that Cover Up was in the Compilation & Remix albums section, even though the majority of the album is new recordings, and the only remixes are bonus tracks. So I moved it to the main album section on that page, and restored it to the list of albums in the main article. I actually rather like Cover Up; Al has a long history of picking dodgy songs for covers ("Do Ya Think I'm Sexy"?), and he does make them sound like Ministry. Pretty much exactly like how you'd imagine Ministry would sound doing covers, which I find fun but probably gets under the skin of others. -- Foetusized (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Maynard

Hi there, I redirected back Maynard's last term to A/L. The Congressional Directory states he was elected to 1875. The ordinal Congress for the 43rd congress lists him as an at-large representative. I don't mind you changing, but what are your references?Pvmoutside (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the link you reinserted after his name, to Tennessee's At-large congressional district, you will see it hasn't existed since 1823, and there's nothing there at all related to the 43rd Congress in 1873. According to United States congressional delegations from Tennessee#1873 - present, Maynard was somehow elected on an at-large basis to the newly-reinstated 10th seat. I'm not sure how that happened.

There's an article about Maynard from the University of Tennessee alumni magazine at [2], covering up to 1866. I can't find the second part of the article (presumably from the Fall 1997 issue) online, even using archive.org.

Andrew Johnson

Hi, I just noticed you reverted my edit to Andrew Johnson. The problem seems to be arising from the fact that the ref named "timeline" contains three separate links, one of which is purporting to be an archive of another, but isn't. The links in question are this, which makes no reference to when he was elected to the Tennessee Senate, its supposed archive, which has it at 1839, and this, which thinks he was elected in 1841. CongBio also says 1841, so I'd be inclined to go with that, but I'll defer to your judgment. If you edit the article regularly and/or are knowledgeable on the subject, perhaps you could sort out the reference thing? It's unnecessarily complicated as it is. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 16:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the conflict between the sources now. The one (archived) source says he served two terms in the state Senate, elected in 1839 and 1841. The other two (congressional bio and the more current PDF from Tusculum) say he was elected to the state House in 1939 for a second, non-consecutive term, and the state Senate for a single term elected in 1841. I'm going to go with the latter -- Foetusized (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Hello, Foetusized. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rapido (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foetusized, you made a good start on the WQA page. Thank you for that. You might do the same on the user's talk page. Do you think you could manage to also say that you won't do it again? --Una Smith (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed the AN/I you opened here. Nevermind. --Una Smith (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Cope

You know, I always thought "World Shut Your Mouth" came from World Shut Your Mouth. I can't say I paid too much attention to him after Teardrop Explodes, so I'll let you have that[3] ;) --JD554 (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fad Gadget

Thanks for helping with the editing of the article--Electronic Music (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced

The UL is a normal company that carries no special authority or legal weight. Their approval is not required for anything in particular. There are many competing labs that offer similar services. All of these assertions about the UL and insurance are completely unsourced. If you can't locate a source, then we should remove all of it. Gigs (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance companies are also just normal companies, and can include whatever they want in homeowners' insurance policies. It is entirely plausible that UL (or similar) certification for electronics used in the home be required in these contracts, as the Underwriters Laboratories has its roots in the insurance industry (hence the "Underwriters" in the name). I've removed the content from the white van speaker article for lack of reference, but still maintain it could be true -- Foetusized (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing. If you think about it, nearly every house fire is caused by some code violation, some kind of poorly engineered product, or negligence on the part of the homeowner. Insurance companies are interested in the root causes of these fires so that they can reduce their liability, but only in the aggregate. They don't use these reasons to deny claims, or there wouldn't be much point in having insurance. OSHA in workplaces and the NEC for fixed installations do require "listed" components, but UL is only one of many companies that can provide a listing that satisfies those requirements (though it is the most common). Gigs (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German MMT

Where specifically, given the significance of the German Magical Mystery Tour album, does WP:NFCC show that the cover should not be shown? Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was pointed out at [4] -- removing the non-free from the article would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. The importance of that release is the musical content, not the cover -- Foetusized (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rivethead

Can you please keep an eye on the Rivethead article? An anon. editor is making a great many unexplained and unreferenced changes. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robeson Edits

Hi, please weigh in on the editing war if you have the time. The edit you noted as "botched" for the Carnegie Hall has been reverted and the previous edit gone over for povs and restructured. Str1977 still prefers his though and there is an editing war so we would like feedback. Thanks so much. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Douglass School, Kingsport

Thanks for adding the Waymarking link to the Douglass School section of the Kingsport, Tennessee article that I wrote. I was about to add it, and I saw that you already had. I'd like to add a picture of the new building, too, but I haven't mastered Wiki's picture placement process yet.

Survey Questions

Hi Foetusized, I am a PhD student from the Carnegie Mellon University. I am interested in the Wikipedia community, especially the group mechanism of collaboration of the week. I noticed that you have participated in WikiProject Alternative Music’s collaborations before. Could you please take several minutes to answer the following questions if possible? Thanks for your help!

Q1. How many times (approximately) have you participated in Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week?

Q2. How much do you learn from participating in Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week? A. A lot; B. A little bit; C. Not at all (please skip Q3 if you choose C)

Q3. What did you learn from participating in Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week? Please provide examples if possible.

Q4. Do you have any negative experience of Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week?

Q5. What do you think are some of the reasons for Wikiproject Alternative Music's cancellation of collaboration of the week?

You could leave your answers either in your or my talk page if possible. Thanks for your time! We have the same goal to make Wikipedia a better place.

Cheers --Haiyizhu (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesborough

Hi, Foetusized. I know you are knowledgable about Johnson City and its environs. Do you also have any information that might shed some light on the current subject at Talk:Jonesboro Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee)‎? --Orlady (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Peacock

Hi Foetsusized, The above article is strongly skewed towards FAN POV and I have tagged it as such. As you have mentioned on the talk page, the undue weight in the lead that has been given to The Civil Wars is one example of this problem with the article. I am going to try to review the entire article and remove the fan POV but any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. See you on the talk page. thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Blue Monday (New Order song) IP editor

Thanks for notify me, but you can remove content from your talkpage, especially personal attacks. Anyway I'm watching this page just in case. ۞ Tbhotch ^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 18:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I can remove the personal attacks, but I usually choose not to. I was more interested in having you see a new IP address for this clown. Thanks again -- Foetusized (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would I prove it's not OR?

Are you just an asshole. I'm assuming you are. If that's OR, then it is impossible to provide any pictures to help people here. Not that it's likely to make any difference here, it can't hurt. 169.139.19.107 (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC) I had a long conversation with them after they tried to sell me stuff. The pathetic thing was that even after detailing the fact that I'd fallen for it before, they still tried to tell me that "they're stuff was good." The only law they really break is selling without a receipt, not charging tax, and having no business license/license numbers displayed on the vehicle. It's a good thing and it's good it happens because it's a fairly cheap way to teach dumb people (as apparantly I was in Fort Lauderdale) a good lesson about money and people without losing too much. Often they seek affluent young people, presumably college students, who are naiive and dumb. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to a WikiProject

You're invited to be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Appalachia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountains. To accept this invitation, click here!

Or did I ask you once before? --Orlady (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For many minor but important edits that maintain encyclopedia quality. Orlady (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve James Sherlock

Please could you help with the editing of the article Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Steve James Sherlock ? I specifically would like some help linking the references to the content. Hope you can help - regards '86.152.61.137 (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)'[reply]

Talk:Courtney Love/GA1

A GAN has started on Courtney Love and is currently on hold for an initial seven days to allow contributors to deal with copy-edit issues, building the lead, and trimming excessive detail. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Courtney Love/GA1

Courtney Love has been going through a lengthy Good Article review, and is now close to being listed. There now needs to be a bit of tidying up done - trimming some excessive detail, and a bit of copy-editing, as well as building up the lead a bit more. This is one of the top viewed articles on Wikipedia and is on an important yet complex subject. Any assistance, even if only to proof read one of the sections, would be much appreciated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Could you opine on this this matter. Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cocteau Twins Undo

Hi,

From Creativetechnologist (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)creativetechnologist[reply]

I very much disagree with your undo on the addition I made to the Cocteau Twins article. Clearly you are not from the UK like the band in question, Dawn French is a huge star here and a national institution as is Desert Island Discs, oh and an article in one of the most widespread daily papers is worth a mention too.

Wikipedia is useful because it contains up to date and important information, the band in question is a part of history now so any new information about it, I assume, is fairly useful.

The fact it's a cover isn't really relevant, I'm not sure they are the first to do this.

So, I will undo your action and await your comment.

Best wishes, Richard (Creativetechnologist (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)creativetechnologist)[reply]

My main issue is that "Song to the Siren" was never a Cocteau Twins song, but a This Mortal Coil song. As such, it really doesn't belong in the lede to the Cocteau Twins article, which I attempted to explain in my edit summary. The text in now farther down in the Cocteau Twins article (I moved it there after someone else removed it), where it explains that the Guthrie & Frasier recording of "Song to the Siren" was part of the This Mortal Coil project, and in the article for Song to the Siren (Tim Buckley song) in the section about the This Mortal Coil cover. Perhaps it deserves mention in the This Mortal Coil article -- Foetusized (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed here from the article. I think the confusion has arisen due to Kirsty Young, the presenter on Desert Island Discs, making a mistake; after playing Song to the Siren on the show with Dawn French, she commented that it was by "Cocteau Twins, This Mortal Coil" - a commonly made mistake, as Cocteau Twins were involved in the This Mortal Coil project (and indeed as Foetusized states above, the TMC version of Song to the Siren was recorded by 2 members of Cocteau Twins). I think Foetusized moving it to farther down the article is the best course of action (better than my removal of it, as it is a rather nice quote). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that the song's artist had been misidentified in the broadcast. The citation in Express does say This Mortal Coil with no mention of Cocteau Twins -- Foetusized (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Castle

Can you verify he was born in Kingsport? I'm not finding a good source for it, and several sites say he was born in Los Angeles. Bms4880 (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot verify that. I did see a "Cable Country" segment on WJHL-TV news about Dick Warlock, the stuntman that portrayed Michael Meyers in Halloween II, who was living in Kingsport at the time. I think the two may have gotten confused -- Foetusized (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bulgarian State Television Female Vocal Choir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Cappella (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) 16:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I would greatly appreciate that there'll edit page of The Housemartins, thanks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.185.53.218 (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your local knowledge

Hi. I spent a few minutes cleaning up the mini-biography of LeRoy Reeves in the article Flag of Tennessee. The source says he attended Johnson City High School and then Johnson City College and Normal Institute. I assume these names can be linked to Science Hill High School and East Tennessee State University, respectively, but I couldn't confirm that... Can you please sort this out? --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source -- Inaugural Edition of Science Hill High School’s “The Wataugan” -- identifies Reeves as a 1894 graduate of Science Hill High School. The only other high school in town would have been Langston High School, for black students.

Reeves would have attended normal school before East Tennessee State Normal School was founded in 1911, having taught from 1896 to 1898. Whatever Johnson City College and Normal Institute was (and the only references I can find to it are in biographies of Reeves), it clearly predated ETSNS/ETSU. -- Foetusized (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Your conclusions look very solid. --Orlady (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion needed

Hi Foetusized, I noticed you were one of the people who reverted User:Werieth's edit on I Think We're Alone Now article for the removal of a single art cover for a cover version. There's currently a discussion about keeping the image or not: Talk:I Think We're Alone Now. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks!--SuperHotWiki (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Love

The article Courtney Love that you worked on has been listed as a good article; see Talk:Courtney Love for comments about the article. Well done! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valley and bluegrass

Hi. I just converted Happy Valley, Tennessee into a disambiguation page, so that Happy Valley in Carter County could be properly covered. One of the articles that links to this page is The Bailey Brothers and the Happy Valley Boys, which is kind of a mess. It indicates that they Baileys were from Happy Valley, "near Rogersville." I figure that is far more likely to refer to the Happy Valley in Carter County than to the one in Blount County, but neither of those places is particularly near Rogersville. (Maybe there's another Happy Valley closer to Rogersville.) The sources aren't much help. Do you happen to have any knowledge or insight on this? --Orlady (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Americana Music Honors & Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Hunter (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) 09:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Order FACTUS 50.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:New Order FACTUS 50.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 08:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:East Tennessee State University Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:East Tennessee State University Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Technics 1200 page

Please refrain from continually vandalising the section on the Technics 1200 page. (re. petition) - the links do comply with wikipedia rules.

Further vandalism will be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.178.112 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not continuously vandalizing the Technics SL-1200 page; I am just having to continually remove your vandalism. While the link to the petition is indeed within Wikipedia rules, it is not sufficient as the sole source for a section about itself. A second (or third) link to a reliable source such as a news article is needed before such hearsay can be included in the article. Thanks -- Foetusized (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link is sufficient as it is original, you have no grounds to say otherwise. If you have a problem please take it up with the petitions authour on the talk page. Any future vandalisms by yourself will be reverted by the team as it is important for people to know such petition exists.

Just because it is important to you and your friends involved with this petition, does not mean that it meets the rules to be included in Wikipedia. I have removed this unencyclopedic, not properly referenced section once again -- Foetusized (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit has been reverted, as the sources ARE verifiable. Further edits by yourself which removes the information will be reverted by either myself or the team, and you will be flagged for constant vandalism. Djrichie t (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Foetusized. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Foetusized. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Foetusized. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-a-thon at Vanderbilt for REAL Symposium

Hope you can join us this Saturday!--Heathart (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USCITIES

Reads- For "college towns" where students reside in the "town" only during their college years, it is preferred to list those students in the "Notable alumni" section of their respective college article, then add a {{See also}} in the city article "pointing" at the notable college section of the specific college article or separate notable college article. For example: {{See also|Tabor College (Kansas)#Notable alumni and faculty|l1=List of Tabor College notable people}} or {{See also|List of Harvard University people}}. Busfield and Chesney only went to college in Johnson City....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So how exactly was your deleting three people (only two of which were ETSU students), not removing the ETSU stud3ent-athletes from the list, and failing to add the "See Also" link for ETSU alumni, meet this standard? David Cole (record producer) was born in Johnson City, and I went to junior high with him there, until his family moved to New Jersey. -- Foetusized (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cole was an accident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]