FYI, I really like the table - great move! Sorry if I was a little over-zealous on my edits the other night, too. Let me know if I can help - I can't wait to start writing articles for the artists. – Freechild ( BoomCha) 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little embarrassed about removing those "deceased" without dates... I'll dig them up right now and stick 'em into the chart. – Freechild ( BoomCha) 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I am finding all kinds of info about Omaha's music scene beyond what is at the OBMHoF. If you want a taste, google Lloyd Hunter's band, "The Serenaders". Then there's the Cotton Club Boys, who once included the great Charlie Christian. The International Sweethearts of Rhythm had some folks who became big names, and others who faded away. The following paragraph is from http://crooners.tribe.net/thread/c1a007bc-4d05-4be5-8814-49556ac48246
I am about to do up some articles on the folks above - there is so much out here its kind of overwhelming. A little background for you: I grew up in North Omaha in the 1980s, as gangs and drugs and violence were tearing the community apart. I moved away over 10 years ago, and now I'm fascinated by what I had heard about, but never learned until now: That place is deep, heavy with history and culture and everything. So I dabble in all of it, trying to learn as much as I want to, and share what I can. So finding this stuff is a spectacular boost to my morning. Did you know North Omaha was home to four big bands from the 1920s through the 1940s? I didn't! – Freechild ( BoomCha) 15:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Rev. Henderson... Let's see. First off, its hard to find anything biographical about him, because everything written simply lists him in the credits. However, in terms of notability he's fine because he won an award. That's all it takes. Second, he was a highly prolific sessions player, and respected throughout his industry, and that's a high mark too. His notability is just fine. The fact we can't find anything biographical stinks though - especially the part about his hand! WOW! So I'll keep looking, but it might take a day or two. Good digging - feel free to throw anything easier. Oh, and I searched Google under ["Patrick Henderson" music] and ["Patrick Henderson" gospel]. You could try the same thing with the individual instruments if you wanted.
Regarding the OBMHoF, I think that the creativity of the guy running it must be waning. But an important thing I try to remember is that I only report the facts, and nothing but the facts. If I'm interested in a topic, I stay with the article... but if I lose interest, I let the article go. – Freechild ( BoomCha) 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Rev. Henderson...
Let's see. First off, its hard to find anything biographical about him, because everything written simply lists him in the credits.
However, in terms of notability he's fine because he won an award. That's all it takes. Second, he was a highly prolific sessions player, and respected throughout his industry, and that's a high mark too. His notability is just fine.
The fact we can't find anything biographical stinks though - especially the part about his hand! WOW!
So I'll keep looking, but it might take a day or two.
Good digging - feel free to throw anything easier.
Oh, and I searched Google under ["Patrick Henderson" music] and ["Patrick Henderson" gospel]. You could try the same thing with the individual instruments if you wanted.
This whole situation really gives a new meaning to the Americanism "talk to the hand". I cleaned up that citation and found another detail - Henderson wrote his chapter in that book. I guess you could say he really gave the author a hand. I'll keep digging up anything about Henderson today. I wonder if I'll find a picture of him - I'm sure he is handsome. These sure are handy puns. – Freechild ( BoomCha) 14:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Anything to lend a hand. I like to get my hands around an article and really work with it - but you'll find I'll be kinda hands off about this now. – Freechild ( BoomCha) 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question. I probably couldn't answer it now, but I will think about it and get back to you. — $PЯING rαgђ 04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear friend, that was incredibly sweet, thank you so much! :) In your compliment and gracious words to me, there is such beautiful poetry, that it is only fair that I repay your beautiful gesture with something equally poetic...
I know it's simple, but it sums up my gratitude perfectly. May you have a beautiful day, my friend! :) Love, Phaedriel - 05:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I dug, I found something you'd posted on a forum with this question, and I cannot find anything specifically about Anita Baker singing "What a Fool Believes". Aretha Franklin? Found her. George Michael citation? Found it. But I can find nothing - not a thing - mentioning the remote possibility that Anita Baker sang this song. Give me another one when you get it. – Freechild ( BoomCha) 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I added some notability stuff to the Slowdown article - but it could use more. Two suggestions: Avoid in-line citations for off-WP links, like this one. They are frowned upon by editors, and should probably either be done as citations, like this [1] or stuck into an external links section. The second suggestion is to cite all the info you find whenever you add it. So all the history info in the Slowdown article should be cited to the source. Otherwise the writing might read like you're someone personally affiliated with the venue, and that there is a POV issue. Just a few suggestions - take 'em or leave 'em. Give me anther Anita Baker-like fastball when you get a one - that was aggravatingly fun. (PS - I'm still looking - I've got some "feelers" out among musician friends. Was it a live recording by chance?) – Freechild ( BoomCha) 16:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I have read your talk page. However, I'm still wondering about your removal of
http://www.oneconnect.ie Irish Veterans - The Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen & Women (ONE) from all of the Irish Military pages. (i.e.
Irish Army;
Irish Defence Forces;
Reserve Defence Forces;
Naval Service Reserve;
Irish Air Corps;
Irish Army Reserve;
Irish Naval Service)
I can see how you might argue that it could be spam, but on the other hand, one could justifiably argue that the Veterans were, and to some degree still are, an important part of the Military, and whether it is spam or not seems to me to be more a matter of opinion than a matter of fact.
However, I'm willing to be enlightened, so please, enlighten me as to why a link to the Veterans is spam.
(Is it simply a case that a link to a Wiki page on Veterans would be OK, but an external link isn't?)
Cheers,
Pdfpdf
14:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
but it is not directly linked to - Yeah, I see your point. I agree. (It's only indirectly related; the link should only be from where it is directly related.)
adding the same link to a number of articles ... - Presumably there are cases where adding the same link to a number of articles is quite valid? (I agree that the cases where it's not valid are pretty obvious!) For example, having a link to the Rolling Stones official web site on each album's page. Is that valid?
Such edits should be discussed on the talkpages, i.s.o. keep on adding the links, even after a warning is issued. - Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Which edits? Theirs or yours? On all six talk pages? What does "i.s.o." mean? (in stead of ??)
Hope this explains. - Yes, it does, thank you. It explains it quite well. (Somehow I didn't pick up on the "directly related" criteria from reading your talk page.) Cheers,
Pdfpdf
14:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
By-the-way: Please consider the alternatives before readding the link - It took me about four goes at reading that sentence before realising you didn't mean "reading" or "redding". Perhaps the easily confused would find "re-adding" less confusing? Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. Would having a link to the Rolling Stones official web site on each Rolling Stones album's wiki page be valid? Pdfpdf 15:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I now realise that the following is rather simplistic, but given your linkfarm comments, (Is it the case that a link to a Wiki page on Veterans [or Rolling Stones] would be OK, but an external link isn't?) Pdfpdf 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Pdfpdf 15:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Why? Pdfpdf 10:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
(I prefer to see both sides of the conversation in the same place.)
Case closed? Pdfpdf 10:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
--
As I previously said, as far as I'm concerned, the "case" is "closed" - the fact that the video is no longer there is excellent justification for the edit you made.
However, it seemed to me that you were seeking a response from me.
If so, I include one below.
If not, just ignore what's below.
Cheers,
Pdfpdf
11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to see both sides of the conversation in the same place. See your talk page for my response.
One way is to add the-page-in-question to your watchlist.
That's why I responded on your talk page rather than mine.
If it were more than enough, then I wouldn't have felt the need to ask the question "Why?", would I.
So clearly, it wasn't more than enough.
Of course (in your opinion) you would think it's enough. If you didn't think it was enough, I expect that you would have said something different which you did think was enough.
(Note that when you try to communicate with someone, if they don't understand what you mean, then you haven't communicated.)
I see. ("Pulled" means something quite different in England and Australia.)
Quoting one's sources frequently involves posting a link to a copyrighted work, so I don't see why this "should be common sense".
I see. (By-the-way: I wasn't the one who posted the link. And "Engineer Bob" is pretty hot on these sort of things, so when he left it there, I assumed it was OK.)
Yes thank you.
All of my comments have been placed on your talk page; I haven't put any of my comments on my talk page (except one which said "See your talk page for my response.")
(Undid revision 150965732 by Jfdwolff (talk) relevant as its current)
Yes, it's current, but currency is not a justification for relevance. What relevance does this fact have? Who is Lee Dennison and why/how is Lee Dennison notable?
Pdfpdf
14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, you're getting a bit of a rocky introduction to WP! When I look back to my early talk page archives, I can see that I disagreed with some of the edits, deletions and reversions that were done to some of my contributions. I think it takes a little while to get used to the "rules" of WP, and how WP operates. Also, as a new editor, I imagine that you're keen to get on with contributing, and less keen to get bogged down with the Manual of Style and the other documents mentioned in your "Welcome!" message.
Jfdwolff has been unusually detailed in his explanation: personal life of individual members is arguably not relevant unless it directly pertains to the band's future (e.g. new partner stops band member touring) - I see no evidence for that here. I'm afraid I have to agree with him.
As I implied before, relevance is the important criteria - not currency. (And by itself, not notability either).
I have to ask you again: What is the relevance of your addition?
(Also, when there is a relevance that is not self-evident, you also need to supply comment/footnote/reference of the supporting evidence.)
You've made the comment: if a partner is not valid then majority of all entries are invlaid on this site. I think you've missed the point; mention of a partner may be valid, if it is relevant. Can you point me to an example of a mention of a partner please? If so, I'll see if I can explain to you why it is relevant.
I hope you find this useful. Feel free to ask questions if it isn't clear. Best wishes, Pdfpdf 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Please sign your posts with four tildes - it tells when you made the post.
Although I agree with your actions and explanations, don't you think it would be more polite to discuss it on Pukkabosh's talk page? Pdfpdf 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
To quote an experienced Wikipedian: "Pukkabosh is a new editor, and we shouldn't
WP:BITE", but it seems to me that although you're not actually "bite"ing, you're not exactly "introducing him/her gently" to the requirements of WP either.
Yes, your second WP:ES was unusually detailed, and I understood it and thought it very clear. But given his/her newness to WP, I can imagine that it might have gone straight over his/her head.
Yes indeed, Editing would be a complete nuisance if we had to explain our every action in talk page posts. And I, too, don't think that extends as far as explaining every revert in extenso above and beyond what is already in the edit summary.
However, I'm not talking about every revert. I just think we should be a little more polite to (and tolerant of) new editors, and should make some effort to direct them back onto "the straight and narrow".
Given his/her latest comment (viz: if a partner is not valid, then majority of all entries are invlaid on this site(sic)) he/she doesn't seem to have much idea about what "the straight and narrow" is!!
Regards,
Pdfpdf
13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
At the suggestion of Pdfpdf (above), I am just dropping a message to explain why I keep on removing your addition from Matt Bianco. The article is clearly about the band and its music, as one would expect in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias will generally not deviate into the private lives of band members in such articles unless this is immediately relevant to the article; for instance, the The Beatles article definitely needs to mention Yoko Ono, because her appearance in John Lennon's life radically changed the history of The Beatles. You have not indicated why Lee Dennison would shape the history of Matt Bianco. Furthermore, Wikipedia aims to trace every bit of content to reliable sources; do you think you could provide a reliable source for the Reilly-Dennison link?
The solution for all this would be to write an article about Mark Reilly; that article, being about his person, would definitely merit mention of his most current relationship (provided WP:RS and our biography guidelines are adhered to).
I hope this explains matters. Please note that none of this is personal, and that I'm very happy to help out or provide further explanations if you want. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Good work! And it's nice to see that someone else is keeping an eye on this page. (The page has a history of being "censored".) Thanks, Pdfpdf 10:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
> Whoever's doing it seems to have learned to missquote cited sources as well and use weasel words to confuse issues.
Perhaps the person is a politician?
Oh dear! You've introduced a pile of errors. The facts are:
Pdfpdf 10:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure. (I'll be leaving the citations alone. I agree that they might slow the propagandist down.) Pdfpdf 11:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't as hard as I thought it would be!
BTW There's a red link to
Jon Stanhope Media Release in one of the citations you added.
Cheers,
Pdfpdf
12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
12:58, 21 August 2007 212.22.3.8 (Talk) (6,764 bytes) (Undid revision 152567300 by Pdfpdf (talk) sorry but it is - maybe take to discussion?)
sorry but it is - How is it relevant? And what is it relevant to? If you feel it is relevant, you need to explain how/why - either as part of the text, or as a footnote/reference.
maybe take to discussion? - As I said, see
User talk:Pukkabosh. Clearly you didn't look, so the following is copied from there to here.
Pdfpdf
13:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Matt Bianco --
(Undid revision 150965732 by Jfdwolff (talk) relevant as its current)
Yes, it's current, but currency is not a justification for relevance. What relevance does this fact have? Who is Lee Dennison and why/how is Lee Dennison notable?
Pdfpdf
14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
<deleted>
Jfdwolff has been unusually detailed in his explanation: personal life of individual members is arguably not relevant unless it directly pertains to the band's future (e.g. new partner stops band member touring) - I see no evidence for that here. I'm afraid I have to agree with him.
As I implied before, relevance is the important criteria - not currency. (And by itself, not notability either).
I have to ask you again: What is the relevance of your addition?
(Also, when there is a relevance that is not self-evident, you also need to supply comment/footnote/reference of the supporting evidence.)
You've made the comment: if a partner is not valid then majority of all entries are invlaid on this site. I think you've missed the point; mention of a partner may be valid, if it is relevant. Can you point me to an example of a mention of a partner please? If so, I'll see if I can explain to you why it is relevant.
I hope you find this useful. Feel free to ask questions if it isn't clear. Best wishes, Pdfpdf 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Please sign your posts with four tildes - it tells when you made the post.
--More on Matt Bianco--
At the suggestion of Pdfpdf (above), I am just dropping a message to explain why I keep on removing your addition from Matt Bianco. The article is clearly about the band and its music, as one would expect in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias will generally not deviate into the private lives of band members in such articles unless this is immediately relevant to the article; for instance, the The Beatles article definitely needs to mention Yoko Ono, because her appearance in John Lennon's life radically changed the history of The Beatles. You have not indicated why Lee Dennison would shape the history of Matt Bianco. Furthermore, Wikipedia aims to trace every bit of content to reliable sources; do you think you could provide a reliable source for the Reilly-Dennison link?
The solution for all this would be to write an article about Mark Reilly; that article, being about his person, would definitely merit mention of his most current relationship (provided WP:RS and our biography guidelines are adhered to).
I hope this explains matters. Please note that none of this is personal, and that I'm very happy to help out or provide further explanations if you want. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised to read that you feel I am resorting to bullying tactics. I've only copied a small portion of the conversation to your talk page. I would very much appreciate it if you would read the complete conversation on pukkabosh's and jfdwolff's talk pages, and explain to me how I'm bullying. I've gone to great efforts to try to explain things to pukkabosh, and even managed to convince jfdwolff, a much more experienced and eloquent user than I am (who was initially loath to explain his actions), to explain to pukkabosh why jfdwolff was reverting pukkabosh's contributions. So I'm quite surprised, and a little upset, to read that you feel I'm bullying, and I would very much appreciate understanding why you say I am. In anticipation of your reply, Thank you
Pdfpdf
16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
By-the-way, I am the person who copied jfdwolff's answer here. I agree with you that he has done a much better job of explaining his actions than I was able to. If you wish him to receive your compliment and thanks, you may want to post them on his talk page as he would be unaware of this conversation here.
Pdfpdf
16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
On
User talk:Bobo192,
Pdfpdf said:
As an explanation, the above is useless. It just says what you did (which is obvious anyway and doesn't require explanation.) It doesn't say why you did it.
Though I simply reverted the edits made by this anonymous user, as you go on to state, the article did in itself need lots of cleanup which I felt I wasn't able to do by myself, knowing little about the subject matter. Thank you very much for taking this job on yourself. Hopefully this kind of incident will not happen too often from here on. Bobo . 03:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with the use of categories, but wouldn't Rev. Patrick Henderson fit into both of those categories?
(And perhaps some other categories too?)
Pdfpdf
01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pdfpdf, long time no see! I was referring to WP:BLP, which requires quite stringently that biographies of living people are carefully sourced and cited, especially if disparaging. The user before edited the bio of the living singer Michael McDonald (singer), claiming he was known for his "legendary sexual exploits". I'm assuming this was vandalism, but I tried to assume good faith and merely point out that such a claim requires a citation to back it, instead of calling it vandalism. Hope this clears it up, Eliz81 (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I like what you did to the "Winans family" page. Good work. Thanks, Pdfpdf 18:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
(I gather you prefer to talk here rather than on your page? That suits me - I prefer to see both sides of the "conversation" in the one place.)
Hi again. Heaven knows what I'm interested in! Currently I seem to be jumping around all over the place, but thanks for the invitation. Cheers,
Pdfpdf
18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
For whatever reason, "diffuse" is Wikipedia jargon for depopulating a category by moving all or most of its articles into more specific subcategories (such as moving an article from Category:Indie rock groups/ Category:Australian musical groups to the crosscategory Category:Australian indie rock groups instead.) Bearcat 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but I expect that you would know the answer ...
I gather that it's a no-no to link to myspace and you tube.
Can you point me at the explanation of why this is the case?
Many thanks,
Pdfpdf
11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
(BTW: The Matt Bianco irrelevant comment add/delete tussle has rekindled, this time with User talk:212.22.3.8, and you've come up smelling of roses! (Conversely, I've been classified as a bully!) Cheers, Pdfpdf 11:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC) )
Ta. Pdfpdf 22:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
05:13, 24 August 2007 Jgcarter (Talk | contribs) (6,582 bytes) (linked to PureSprings Gospel and removed mention of Matthew Winans, he isnt part of the article's focus nor are there any sources plus it was not NPOV)
Greetings!
This Matthew Winans thing is a curly one. Would you mind having a look at the Revision history please?
removed mention of Matthew Winans, he isnt part of the article's focus
Yes, I agree. You'll notice that I made an almost identical comment myself, viz:
02:44, 22 August 2007 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) (7,781 bytes) (Although a family member, Matthew Winans is almost irrelevant to this article, which focuses on the Gospel Music involvement of the Winans family. Also, there are no sources quoted.)
I discussed the matter with Bobo192:
I agree that it still needs more work, but I think it was making progress, and hence I also think you may have been a bit too quick-off-the-mark removing it. It's only been there for 3 days, and a lot of work has been done on it in that time, and it has been improved dramatically. It would be a shame to throw all that work away, particularly when doing so would also discourage a new user.
nor are there any sources
I disagree. When I made my edit comment, there were indeed no sources. There are now some, but I agree that there are several important ones missing. (Knowing nothing about professional basketball, I've exhausted my ability to find them!)
plus it was not NPOV
Really? I thought I'd been fairly successful toning it done, and thought I'd achieved NPOV. Please point out those bits which you feel are not NPOV - I'd like to learn the error of my opinions.
So, where do we go from here?
I'd like to reinstate it for a while in the hope that it gets sufficiently improved to be tolerated. If it doesn't get out of the substandard category within a week or two, we'll need to review the situation.
Note, however, that (like you) I still think it's irrelevant, but maybe it can be justified, particularly if we're trying to nurture a new user?
I'd like to read what you think about all this.
Regards,
Pdfpdf
14:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. (Conversations are a lot easier when everyone agrees with each other, aren't they!) Yes, sending him/her a message would be a good approach. (Though perhaps someone should "Welcome" him/her first? The talk page is still a red link!) Yes, Matthew is irrelevant to this page. On the NPOV, fair enough. Thanks. And yes, there is way too much data. (Don't know if I'd class it as information yet!)
In theory, I like the "separate page" plan. My only problem is, is Matthew sufficiently notable to merit his own page? Cheers, Pdfpdf 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. It's way past bed-time here (2am). I've got to get up at 7am and take the kids to sport. I'll continue the conversation in about 8 hours. Pdfpdf 16:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It's turning into a beautiful day here, thanks. The trees are in blossom and there's a touch of spring in the air, even though, technically, it's still winter. It's nice to feel the warm sun on your back.
I hope you enjoyed your weekend away.
Rather than completely deleting Mastariale21's hard work, I'll look into the viabilitly of incorporating it into the
Las Vegas Stars (basketball team) page; that way we can sort-of-redirect interested parties to a more relevant page without throwing the work away. It will have the added advantage of showing Mastariale21 all sorts of things about how WP works, but give a positive solution rather than a negative one. I had in mind something like:
Basketballer
Matthew Winans, the son of Mary and Norman Winans, is a second cousin of David "Pop" Winans. (Norman Winans is a cousin of Pop Winans.)
However, to be truthful, I'd rather spend my time on music (where I have an interest and knowledge) than professional minor league basketball (where I have negative interest and even less knowledge. (Can you have negative knowledge, or is the minimum zero?)).
Well, I'm off to enjoy some of this beautiful warm sunshine. Cheers, Pdfpdf 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Alvin Love is CeCe's son, if you go to PureSprings Gospel's website, you'll see hes on the roster. In addition, she did say he will be releasing an album. Jgcarter 16:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, stupid me...his name is Alvin Love the third. I got so used to saying Winans that I did it by default. Both of her kids, Alvin and Ashley, have the same dad...it was my mistake :D. Jgcarter 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No, there is no Albert Winans/Love...that was a typo. Yes, CeCe married Alvin II and her son is Alvin III. So Alvin I must be CeCe's father in-law. Jgcarter 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's MUCH better, isn't it!! I really like the fact that you got it down to under one line, and I really hope that's the end of it! Best Wishes, Pdfpdf 16:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question. I probably couldn't answer it now, but I will think about it and get back to you. — $PЯING rαgђ 04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Alvin Love is CeCe's son, if you go to PureSprings Gospel's website, you'll see hes on the roster. In addition, she did say he will be releasing an album. Jgcarter 16:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, its great to hear from you - it looks like you've been busy. Second, yes, you've got it right. Anyone can assess any article for any WikiProject, although its mildly discouraged. I've written a couple dozen biographies of folks now, and I still remember that my first reaction to the rating was similar to yours, something to the effect of "WTF?!?" But then I learned that each WikiProject is responsible for assessing their own related articles. The idea behind the system is to give everyone a standard for developing articles they have common interest in. Here's WikiProject Biography's page on assessment if you're interested. Oh, and don't take the ratings personally - they're supposed to reflect the quality of the article, which I've discovered has a lot to do with the length as much as the prose or information presented therein. A "B" rating means the article is on its way. Keep in touch. – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡) 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing lol. I guess we both had different ideas in our heads...who knew that one little edit could spawn several edits in one day? lol Take care! Jgcarter 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the heads-up. Its that kind of direct feedback that it seems like few people on WP are capable of giving. I've reworded the lead with your considerations in mind, and created an alphabetically-ordered table out of the notable people. Please, share your insights anytime. – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡) 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I really like the table - great move! Sorry if I was a little over-zealous on my edits the other night, too. Let me know if I can help - I can't wait to start writing articles for the artists. – Freechild ( BoomCha) 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little embarrassed about removing those "deceased" without dates... I'll dig them up right now and stick 'em into the chart. – Freechild ( BoomCha) 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I am finding all kinds of info about Omaha's music scene beyond what is at the OBMHoF. If you want a taste, google Lloyd Hunter's band, "The Serenaders". Then there's the Cotton Club Boys, who once included the great Charlie Christian. The International Sweethearts of Rhythm had some folks who became big names, and others who faded away. The following paragraph is from http://crooners.tribe.net/thread/c1a007bc-4d05-4be5-8814-49556ac48246
I am about to do up some articles on the folks above - there is so much out here its kind of overwhelming. A little background for you: I grew up in North Omaha in the 1980s, as gangs and drugs and violence were tearing the community apart. I moved away over 10 years ago, and now I'm fascinated by what I had heard about, but never learned until now: That place is deep, heavy with history and culture and everything. So I dabble in all of it, trying to learn as much as I want to, and share what I can. So finding this stuff is a spectacular boost to my morning. Did you know North Omaha was home to four big bands from the 1920s through the 1940s? I didn't! – Freechild ( BoomCha) 15:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Rev. Henderson... Let's see. First off, its hard to find anything biographical about him, because everything written simply lists him in the credits. However, in terms of notability he's fine because he won an award. That's all it takes. Second, he was a highly prolific sessions player, and respected throughout his industry, and that's a high mark too. His notability is just fine. The fact we can't find anything biographical stinks though - especially the part about his hand! WOW! So I'll keep looking, but it might take a day or two. Good digging - feel free to throw anything easier. Oh, and I searched Google under ["Patrick Henderson" music] and ["Patrick Henderson" gospel]. You could try the same thing with the individual instruments if you wanted.
Regarding the OBMHoF, I think that the creativity of the guy running it must be waning. But an important thing I try to remember is that I only report the facts, and nothing but the facts. If I'm interested in a topic, I stay with the article... but if I lose interest, I let the article go. – Freechild ( BoomCha) 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Rev. Henderson...
Let's see. First off, its hard to find anything biographical about him, because everything written simply lists him in the credits.
However, in terms of notability he's fine because he won an award. That's all it takes. Second, he was a highly prolific sessions player, and respected throughout his industry, and that's a high mark too. His notability is just fine.
The fact we can't find anything biographical stinks though - especially the part about his hand! WOW!
So I'll keep looking, but it might take a day or two.
Good digging - feel free to throw anything easier.
Oh, and I searched Google under ["Patrick Henderson" music] and ["Patrick Henderson" gospel]. You could try the same thing with the individual instruments if you wanted.
This whole situation really gives a new meaning to the Americanism "talk to the hand". I cleaned up that citation and found another detail - Henderson wrote his chapter in that book. I guess you could say he really gave the author a hand. I'll keep digging up anything about Henderson today. I wonder if I'll find a picture of him - I'm sure he is handsome. These sure are handy puns. – Freechild ( BoomCha) 14:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Anything to lend a hand. I like to get my hands around an article and really work with it - but you'll find I'll be kinda hands off about this now. – Freechild ( BoomCha) 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question. I probably couldn't answer it now, but I will think about it and get back to you. — $PЯING rαgђ 04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear friend, that was incredibly sweet, thank you so much! :) In your compliment and gracious words to me, there is such beautiful poetry, that it is only fair that I repay your beautiful gesture with something equally poetic...
I know it's simple, but it sums up my gratitude perfectly. May you have a beautiful day, my friend! :) Love, Phaedriel - 05:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I dug, I found something you'd posted on a forum with this question, and I cannot find anything specifically about Anita Baker singing "What a Fool Believes". Aretha Franklin? Found her. George Michael citation? Found it. But I can find nothing - not a thing - mentioning the remote possibility that Anita Baker sang this song. Give me another one when you get it. – Freechild ( BoomCha) 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I added some notability stuff to the Slowdown article - but it could use more. Two suggestions: Avoid in-line citations for off-WP links, like this one. They are frowned upon by editors, and should probably either be done as citations, like this [1] or stuck into an external links section. The second suggestion is to cite all the info you find whenever you add it. So all the history info in the Slowdown article should be cited to the source. Otherwise the writing might read like you're someone personally affiliated with the venue, and that there is a POV issue. Just a few suggestions - take 'em or leave 'em. Give me anther Anita Baker-like fastball when you get a one - that was aggravatingly fun. (PS - I'm still looking - I've got some "feelers" out among musician friends. Was it a live recording by chance?) – Freechild ( BoomCha) 16:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I have read your talk page. However, I'm still wondering about your removal of
http://www.oneconnect.ie Irish Veterans - The Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen & Women (ONE) from all of the Irish Military pages. (i.e.
Irish Army;
Irish Defence Forces;
Reserve Defence Forces;
Naval Service Reserve;
Irish Air Corps;
Irish Army Reserve;
Irish Naval Service)
I can see how you might argue that it could be spam, but on the other hand, one could justifiably argue that the Veterans were, and to some degree still are, an important part of the Military, and whether it is spam or not seems to me to be more a matter of opinion than a matter of fact.
However, I'm willing to be enlightened, so please, enlighten me as to why a link to the Veterans is spam.
(Is it simply a case that a link to a Wiki page on Veterans would be OK, but an external link isn't?)
Cheers,
Pdfpdf
14:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
but it is not directly linked to - Yeah, I see your point. I agree. (It's only indirectly related; the link should only be from where it is directly related.)
adding the same link to a number of articles ... - Presumably there are cases where adding the same link to a number of articles is quite valid? (I agree that the cases where it's not valid are pretty obvious!) For example, having a link to the Rolling Stones official web site on each album's page. Is that valid?
Such edits should be discussed on the talkpages, i.s.o. keep on adding the links, even after a warning is issued. - Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Which edits? Theirs or yours? On all six talk pages? What does "i.s.o." mean? (in stead of ??)
Hope this explains. - Yes, it does, thank you. It explains it quite well. (Somehow I didn't pick up on the "directly related" criteria from reading your talk page.) Cheers,
Pdfpdf
14:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
By-the-way: Please consider the alternatives before readding the link - It took me about four goes at reading that sentence before realising you didn't mean "reading" or "redding". Perhaps the easily confused would find "re-adding" less confusing? Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. Would having a link to the Rolling Stones official web site on each Rolling Stones album's wiki page be valid? Pdfpdf 15:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I now realise that the following is rather simplistic, but given your linkfarm comments, (Is it the case that a link to a Wiki page on Veterans [or Rolling Stones] would be OK, but an external link isn't?) Pdfpdf 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Pdfpdf 15:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Why? Pdfpdf 10:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
(I prefer to see both sides of the conversation in the same place.)
Case closed? Pdfpdf 10:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
--
As I previously said, as far as I'm concerned, the "case" is "closed" - the fact that the video is no longer there is excellent justification for the edit you made.
However, it seemed to me that you were seeking a response from me.
If so, I include one below.
If not, just ignore what's below.
Cheers,
Pdfpdf
11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to see both sides of the conversation in the same place. See your talk page for my response.
One way is to add the-page-in-question to your watchlist.
That's why I responded on your talk page rather than mine.
If it were more than enough, then I wouldn't have felt the need to ask the question "Why?", would I.
So clearly, it wasn't more than enough.
Of course (in your opinion) you would think it's enough. If you didn't think it was enough, I expect that you would have said something different which you did think was enough.
(Note that when you try to communicate with someone, if they don't understand what you mean, then you haven't communicated.)
I see. ("Pulled" means something quite different in England and Australia.)
Quoting one's sources frequently involves posting a link to a copyrighted work, so I don't see why this "should be common sense".
I see. (By-the-way: I wasn't the one who posted the link. And "Engineer Bob" is pretty hot on these sort of things, so when he left it there, I assumed it was OK.)
Yes thank you.
All of my comments have been placed on your talk page; I haven't put any of my comments on my talk page (except one which said "See your talk page for my response.")
(Undid revision 150965732 by Jfdwolff (talk) relevant as its current)
Yes, it's current, but currency is not a justification for relevance. What relevance does this fact have? Who is Lee Dennison and why/how is Lee Dennison notable?
Pdfpdf
14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, you're getting a bit of a rocky introduction to WP! When I look back to my early talk page archives, I can see that I disagreed with some of the edits, deletions and reversions that were done to some of my contributions. I think it takes a little while to get used to the "rules" of WP, and how WP operates. Also, as a new editor, I imagine that you're keen to get on with contributing, and less keen to get bogged down with the Manual of Style and the other documents mentioned in your "Welcome!" message.
Jfdwolff has been unusually detailed in his explanation: personal life of individual members is arguably not relevant unless it directly pertains to the band's future (e.g. new partner stops band member touring) - I see no evidence for that here. I'm afraid I have to agree with him.
As I implied before, relevance is the important criteria - not currency. (And by itself, not notability either).
I have to ask you again: What is the relevance of your addition?
(Also, when there is a relevance that is not self-evident, you also need to supply comment/footnote/reference of the supporting evidence.)
You've made the comment: if a partner is not valid then majority of all entries are invlaid on this site. I think you've missed the point; mention of a partner may be valid, if it is relevant. Can you point me to an example of a mention of a partner please? If so, I'll see if I can explain to you why it is relevant.
I hope you find this useful. Feel free to ask questions if it isn't clear. Best wishes, Pdfpdf 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Please sign your posts with four tildes - it tells when you made the post.
Although I agree with your actions and explanations, don't you think it would be more polite to discuss it on Pukkabosh's talk page? Pdfpdf 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
To quote an experienced Wikipedian: "Pukkabosh is a new editor, and we shouldn't
WP:BITE", but it seems to me that although you're not actually "bite"ing, you're not exactly "introducing him/her gently" to the requirements of WP either.
Yes, your second WP:ES was unusually detailed, and I understood it and thought it very clear. But given his/her newness to WP, I can imagine that it might have gone straight over his/her head.
Yes indeed, Editing would be a complete nuisance if we had to explain our every action in talk page posts. And I, too, don't think that extends as far as explaining every revert in extenso above and beyond what is already in the edit summary.
However, I'm not talking about every revert. I just think we should be a little more polite to (and tolerant of) new editors, and should make some effort to direct them back onto "the straight and narrow".
Given his/her latest comment (viz: if a partner is not valid, then majority of all entries are invlaid on this site(sic)) he/she doesn't seem to have much idea about what "the straight and narrow" is!!
Regards,
Pdfpdf
13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
At the suggestion of Pdfpdf (above), I am just dropping a message to explain why I keep on removing your addition from Matt Bianco. The article is clearly about the band and its music, as one would expect in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias will generally not deviate into the private lives of band members in such articles unless this is immediately relevant to the article; for instance, the The Beatles article definitely needs to mention Yoko Ono, because her appearance in John Lennon's life radically changed the history of The Beatles. You have not indicated why Lee Dennison would shape the history of Matt Bianco. Furthermore, Wikipedia aims to trace every bit of content to reliable sources; do you think you could provide a reliable source for the Reilly-Dennison link?
The solution for all this would be to write an article about Mark Reilly; that article, being about his person, would definitely merit mention of his most current relationship (provided WP:RS and our biography guidelines are adhered to).
I hope this explains matters. Please note that none of this is personal, and that I'm very happy to help out or provide further explanations if you want. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Good work! And it's nice to see that someone else is keeping an eye on this page. (The page has a history of being "censored".) Thanks, Pdfpdf 10:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
> Whoever's doing it seems to have learned to missquote cited sources as well and use weasel words to confuse issues.
Perhaps the person is a politician?
Oh dear! You've introduced a pile of errors. The facts are:
Pdfpdf 10:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure. (I'll be leaving the citations alone. I agree that they might slow the propagandist down.) Pdfpdf 11:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't as hard as I thought it would be!
BTW There's a red link to
Jon Stanhope Media Release in one of the citations you added.
Cheers,
Pdfpdf
12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
12:58, 21 August 2007 212.22.3.8 (Talk) (6,764 bytes) (Undid revision 152567300 by Pdfpdf (talk) sorry but it is - maybe take to discussion?)
sorry but it is - How is it relevant? And what is it relevant to? If you feel it is relevant, you need to explain how/why - either as part of the text, or as a footnote/reference.
maybe take to discussion? - As I said, see
User talk:Pukkabosh. Clearly you didn't look, so the following is copied from there to here.
Pdfpdf
13:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Matt Bianco --
(Undid revision 150965732 by Jfdwolff (talk) relevant as its current)
Yes, it's current, but currency is not a justification for relevance. What relevance does this fact have? Who is Lee Dennison and why/how is Lee Dennison notable?
Pdfpdf
14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
<deleted>
Jfdwolff has been unusually detailed in his explanation: personal life of individual members is arguably not relevant unless it directly pertains to the band's future (e.g. new partner stops band member touring) - I see no evidence for that here. I'm afraid I have to agree with him.
As I implied before, relevance is the important criteria - not currency. (And by itself, not notability either).
I have to ask you again: What is the relevance of your addition?
(Also, when there is a relevance that is not self-evident, you also need to supply comment/footnote/reference of the supporting evidence.)
You've made the comment: if a partner is not valid then majority of all entries are invlaid on this site. I think you've missed the point; mention of a partner may be valid, if it is relevant. Can you point me to an example of a mention of a partner please? If so, I'll see if I can explain to you why it is relevant.
I hope you find this useful. Feel free to ask questions if it isn't clear. Best wishes, Pdfpdf 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Please sign your posts with four tildes - it tells when you made the post.
--More on Matt Bianco--
At the suggestion of Pdfpdf (above), I am just dropping a message to explain why I keep on removing your addition from Matt Bianco. The article is clearly about the band and its music, as one would expect in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias will generally not deviate into the private lives of band members in such articles unless this is immediately relevant to the article; for instance, the The Beatles article definitely needs to mention Yoko Ono, because her appearance in John Lennon's life radically changed the history of The Beatles. You have not indicated why Lee Dennison would shape the history of Matt Bianco. Furthermore, Wikipedia aims to trace every bit of content to reliable sources; do you think you could provide a reliable source for the Reilly-Dennison link?
The solution for all this would be to write an article about Mark Reilly; that article, being about his person, would definitely merit mention of his most current relationship (provided WP:RS and our biography guidelines are adhered to).
I hope this explains matters. Please note that none of this is personal, and that I'm very happy to help out or provide further explanations if you want. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised to read that you feel I am resorting to bullying tactics. I've only copied a small portion of the conversation to your talk page. I would very much appreciate it if you would read the complete conversation on pukkabosh's and jfdwolff's talk pages, and explain to me how I'm bullying. I've gone to great efforts to try to explain things to pukkabosh, and even managed to convince jfdwolff, a much more experienced and eloquent user than I am (who was initially loath to explain his actions), to explain to pukkabosh why jfdwolff was reverting pukkabosh's contributions. So I'm quite surprised, and a little upset, to read that you feel I'm bullying, and I would very much appreciate understanding why you say I am. In anticipation of your reply, Thank you
Pdfpdf
16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
By-the-way, I am the person who copied jfdwolff's answer here. I agree with you that he has done a much better job of explaining his actions than I was able to. If you wish him to receive your compliment and thanks, you may want to post them on his talk page as he would be unaware of this conversation here.
Pdfpdf
16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
On
User talk:Bobo192,
Pdfpdf said:
As an explanation, the above is useless. It just says what you did (which is obvious anyway and doesn't require explanation.) It doesn't say why you did it.
Though I simply reverted the edits made by this anonymous user, as you go on to state, the article did in itself need lots of cleanup which I felt I wasn't able to do by myself, knowing little about the subject matter. Thank you very much for taking this job on yourself. Hopefully this kind of incident will not happen too often from here on. Bobo . 03:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with the use of categories, but wouldn't Rev. Patrick Henderson fit into both of those categories?
(And perhaps some other categories too?)
Pdfpdf
01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pdfpdf, long time no see! I was referring to WP:BLP, which requires quite stringently that biographies of living people are carefully sourced and cited, especially if disparaging. The user before edited the bio of the living singer Michael McDonald (singer), claiming he was known for his "legendary sexual exploits". I'm assuming this was vandalism, but I tried to assume good faith and merely point out that such a claim requires a citation to back it, instead of calling it vandalism. Hope this clears it up, Eliz81 (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I like what you did to the "Winans family" page. Good work. Thanks, Pdfpdf 18:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
(I gather you prefer to talk here rather than on your page? That suits me - I prefer to see both sides of the "conversation" in the one place.)
Hi again. Heaven knows what I'm interested in! Currently I seem to be jumping around all over the place, but thanks for the invitation. Cheers,
Pdfpdf
18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
For whatever reason, "diffuse" is Wikipedia jargon for depopulating a category by moving all or most of its articles into more specific subcategories (such as moving an article from Category:Indie rock groups/ Category:Australian musical groups to the crosscategory Category:Australian indie rock groups instead.) Bearcat 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but I expect that you would know the answer ...
I gather that it's a no-no to link to myspace and you tube.
Can you point me at the explanation of why this is the case?
Many thanks,
Pdfpdf
11:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
(BTW: The Matt Bianco irrelevant comment add/delete tussle has rekindled, this time with User talk:212.22.3.8, and you've come up smelling of roses! (Conversely, I've been classified as a bully!) Cheers, Pdfpdf 11:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC) )
Ta. Pdfpdf 22:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
05:13, 24 August 2007 Jgcarter (Talk | contribs) (6,582 bytes) (linked to PureSprings Gospel and removed mention of Matthew Winans, he isnt part of the article's focus nor are there any sources plus it was not NPOV)
Greetings!
This Matthew Winans thing is a curly one. Would you mind having a look at the Revision history please?
removed mention of Matthew Winans, he isnt part of the article's focus
Yes, I agree. You'll notice that I made an almost identical comment myself, viz:
02:44, 22 August 2007 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) (7,781 bytes) (Although a family member, Matthew Winans is almost irrelevant to this article, which focuses on the Gospel Music involvement of the Winans family. Also, there are no sources quoted.)
I discussed the matter with Bobo192:
I agree that it still needs more work, but I think it was making progress, and hence I also think you may have been a bit too quick-off-the-mark removing it. It's only been there for 3 days, and a lot of work has been done on it in that time, and it has been improved dramatically. It would be a shame to throw all that work away, particularly when doing so would also discourage a new user.
nor are there any sources
I disagree. When I made my edit comment, there were indeed no sources. There are now some, but I agree that there are several important ones missing. (Knowing nothing about professional basketball, I've exhausted my ability to find them!)
plus it was not NPOV
Really? I thought I'd been fairly successful toning it done, and thought I'd achieved NPOV. Please point out those bits which you feel are not NPOV - I'd like to learn the error of my opinions.
So, where do we go from here?
I'd like to reinstate it for a while in the hope that it gets sufficiently improved to be tolerated. If it doesn't get out of the substandard category within a week or two, we'll need to review the situation.
Note, however, that (like you) I still think it's irrelevant, but maybe it can be justified, particularly if we're trying to nurture a new user?
I'd like to read what you think about all this.
Regards,
Pdfpdf
14:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. (Conversations are a lot easier when everyone agrees with each other, aren't they!) Yes, sending him/her a message would be a good approach. (Though perhaps someone should "Welcome" him/her first? The talk page is still a red link!) Yes, Matthew is irrelevant to this page. On the NPOV, fair enough. Thanks. And yes, there is way too much data. (Don't know if I'd class it as information yet!)
In theory, I like the "separate page" plan. My only problem is, is Matthew sufficiently notable to merit his own page? Cheers, Pdfpdf 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. It's way past bed-time here (2am). I've got to get up at 7am and take the kids to sport. I'll continue the conversation in about 8 hours. Pdfpdf 16:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It's turning into a beautiful day here, thanks. The trees are in blossom and there's a touch of spring in the air, even though, technically, it's still winter. It's nice to feel the warm sun on your back.
I hope you enjoyed your weekend away.
Rather than completely deleting Mastariale21's hard work, I'll look into the viabilitly of incorporating it into the
Las Vegas Stars (basketball team) page; that way we can sort-of-redirect interested parties to a more relevant page without throwing the work away. It will have the added advantage of showing Mastariale21 all sorts of things about how WP works, but give a positive solution rather than a negative one. I had in mind something like:
Basketballer
Matthew Winans, the son of Mary and Norman Winans, is a second cousin of David "Pop" Winans. (Norman Winans is a cousin of Pop Winans.)
However, to be truthful, I'd rather spend my time on music (where I have an interest and knowledge) than professional minor league basketball (where I have negative interest and even less knowledge. (Can you have negative knowledge, or is the minimum zero?)).
Well, I'm off to enjoy some of this beautiful warm sunshine. Cheers, Pdfpdf 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Alvin Love is CeCe's son, if you go to PureSprings Gospel's website, you'll see hes on the roster. In addition, she did say he will be releasing an album. Jgcarter 16:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, stupid me...his name is Alvin Love the third. I got so used to saying Winans that I did it by default. Both of her kids, Alvin and Ashley, have the same dad...it was my mistake :D. Jgcarter 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No, there is no Albert Winans/Love...that was a typo. Yes, CeCe married Alvin II and her son is Alvin III. So Alvin I must be CeCe's father in-law. Jgcarter 15:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's MUCH better, isn't it!! I really like the fact that you got it down to under one line, and I really hope that's the end of it! Best Wishes, Pdfpdf 16:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a good question. I probably couldn't answer it now, but I will think about it and get back to you. — $PЯING rαgђ 04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Alvin Love is CeCe's son, if you go to PureSprings Gospel's website, you'll see hes on the roster. In addition, she did say he will be releasing an album. Jgcarter 16:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, its great to hear from you - it looks like you've been busy. Second, yes, you've got it right. Anyone can assess any article for any WikiProject, although its mildly discouraged. I've written a couple dozen biographies of folks now, and I still remember that my first reaction to the rating was similar to yours, something to the effect of "WTF?!?" But then I learned that each WikiProject is responsible for assessing their own related articles. The idea behind the system is to give everyone a standard for developing articles they have common interest in. Here's WikiProject Biography's page on assessment if you're interested. Oh, and don't take the ratings personally - they're supposed to reflect the quality of the article, which I've discovered has a lot to do with the length as much as the prose or information presented therein. A "B" rating means the article is on its way. Keep in touch. – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡) 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing lol. I guess we both had different ideas in our heads...who knew that one little edit could spawn several edits in one day? lol Take care! Jgcarter 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the heads-up. Its that kind of direct feedback that it seems like few people on WP are capable of giving. I've reworded the lead with your considerations in mind, and created an alphabetically-ordered table out of the notable people. Please, share your insights anytime. – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡) 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)