User talk:FuriousFreddy/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, FuriousFreddy/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Lst 27 20:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Scooby Doo edit summary

I suppose you really believe that Scooby-Doo was named after the Sinatra lyric, huh? Why do people get that wrong? It's "dooby dooby doo". Tell me how this translates into "scooby dooby doo" if there is a way. And also in your edit summary you forgot to capitalize proper names. I always capitalize proper names, even in edit summaries. When I see that when they aren't capitalized, I consider it absolutely unintellectual taste. If I sound mean or offending you, I don't mean it. I'm just trying to make a point. Marcus2 22:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

http://www.timewarner.com/corp/print/0,20858,734309,00.html proves Marcus otherwise. -- user:zanimum

did you know.....

.... that your article about Where Did Our Love Go? is currently featured on the main page under "did you know". Enjoy. Regards Rossrs 09:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jackson 5

Great job on Jackson 5! I've had very little time recently, and probably won't have a lot anytime soon, but I'll see about focusing on getting that one ready. If you like, feel free to add notes about what you think still needs to be done to my user subpage. Tuf-Kat 02:00, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

It definitely needs a reference or three to have a chance at being featured. Do you have any print sources? Someone will probably want a reference for Joe beating his children -- why does it say "many of the children recall"? I was under the impression they were all in agreement on this; if not, the differences in recollection should be noted. Tuf-Kat 04:14, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Our gang

I enjoyed reading this article very much! Quill 22:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Our Gang, again

Just to let you know, I've supported the FAC nomination. I didn't know this was up; I've added the FAC message to the main page; hope it's not too late. Good luck! Quill 23:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music

I'm signing on! Not sure who else to ask. You oughta nominate something for Wikipedia:Music Collaboration of the Week, which I am trying to restart with some new rules. The Temptations looks pretty much ready now. Maybe nominate P-Funk or Tina Turner or Marvin Gaye? Tuf-Kat 02:45, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

tagging articles

Please put templates like {{expansion}} that only are useful to editors, on talk pages (the only exception I can think of would be the different stub templates). Thank you. :) --mav 08:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please note that this is only mav's opinion and is not Wikipedia policy. Rick K 08:59, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Oh my lucky stars!! A Negro!!"

straightenin' myself to my full height, clearin' my throat, squarin' my shoulders, an' actin' all uppity 'n' shyt*

That's KNEE-grow, gott-dammit (if you please)!

Well, that makes two of us up in hurr. :-p (Wikipedia's pretty pitiful, ain't it?) Thanks for the invitation. So far, my edits are all over the place; my interests are pretty eclectic. See blackface, which I nominated for featured article status on a whim. They want references -- which I don't have the time to dig up (most of that stuff's straight outta my head). Maybe I'll get around to it, maybe not. Also, check out black supremacy. I been waitin' for the shyt storm, but so far, nothin' -- nothin' at all. Guess they don't know what the hell to make of it. lol *crackin' up*

Anyway, I don't know that I have the discipline to approach any one general area systematically, and hip-hop as it's been corrupted is definitely not my thing (can't stand the misogyny; the crude, empty, ignorant bravado; the stupid, backward, self-destructiveness of much of it). But if you'd like me to, perhaps, take a second pass at a particular subject or call something to my attention, I'm here to lend a hand/give it a go. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 16:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As much as I love grits and biscuits! Day-um! (Thanks for your contributions to soul food. Peace. deeceevoice 08:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wow...

Less than half an hour after I put in a link, and you got a stub on The Corporation up -- way to go! (And I thought *I* was addicted to Wikipedia...) --Arcadian 01:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Temptations

I think it's ready to be nominated now. I've added a few interwikis, though, probably to articles that don't yet exist (but probably should, IMO), and made the first pic smaller. See the talk page for a few more notes. Tuf-Kat 01:48, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Love Child

It is more than annoying that you erased all of the information I gathered from multiple searches, for what appears to be your convenience. Very obnoxious. Courtland 06:17, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

You do not throw out information just because it doesn't suit your sense of style. Period. Your disambiguation page isn't proper, frankly, because it should capture both states of capitalization, not only one. I do take it personally when what I do is tossed out the window like so much garbage. Courtland 06:35, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Do not tell me that creation of "red links" is out of order. If there is a WikiProject for that, fine ... fix and tell why you are fixing and I'll refrain from adding such for songs in the future. As far as ASIN codes ... there is no reason that a future activity will activate an ASIN search as ISBN and PMID are currently active. To not include that information when it is sought and placed ... i.e. to discard it because it can't be linked at present ... is pathetic. There are other ways to "hide" this information, such as commenting it out "". It is always easier to trash in silence than to fix and inform, isn't it. Courtland 06:48, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Yes, as you've said you're ok with it (I wasn't going to dash off and do it), I'll move Love Child to Love Child (book) and redirect the dual-capitalized form to Love child. No, I am not in the habit of leaving hanging threads on redirects; it's better to assume that people will do things like clean up after themselves than to assume that they are slobs ... one sounds condescending otherwise. Courtland 06:54, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

about style: there is no admonition in the Style guidelines to the addition of factual information in the form of catalogue numbers of any kind. If that were the case, then things like CAS numbers, PMIDs and, yes, ISBNs would never appear prior to their being "approved". As I pointed out above, there are far better ways to deal with styling than erasure. Courtland 06:59, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

about "that's the way disambiguation is done": one size does not fit all. I've written and, yes, corrected the styles of disambiguation pages and things work well when you are disambiguating a term that is served by several articles of distinct topics. The purpose, but you already know this, of a disambiguation page (and perhaps the disambig tag should not be used in all such cases) is to help direct traffic. Again, one size does not fit all and leeway in application of rules and policies in such a varied environment as this is not only convenient, it is essential. It just seems in this case that "hmmm, there isn't a proper box for this information .. oh, there's one (seeing the trash can)." I don't mind what "box" the information goes in, but if you make a habit of "this fact fits the box, it's in; this fact doesn't, it's out", that's not a policy I can agree with. Courtland 07:07, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I think we're set .. let me know if this doesn't sound ok: "Love Child" redirects to "Love child"; the book is now at Love Child (book) and I altered to direct linkage the items that needed to be (not things in talk sections or adminsitrative type linkages). I removed the wikilink (red) for the music-related items on the disambiguation page and I put the codes I'd pulled up into the disambiguation page as hidden comments with the additional tagline "to be used when an article exists for item X". I hope that "present but hidden from public view" is ok for disambiguation pages that contain information about non-existent articles. Comments? Courtland 07:24, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

I really disagree that "if it doesn't fit then it's out" is what Wikipedia is all about. I'm sorry, I just don't see things like that. Courtland 07:32, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Supremes album: yes, it's for the double with Supremes A' Go-Go; see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004WZ5R/103-9572648-2449442?v=glance . Courtland 07:35, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

A song for you

Oops, I moved it back and will make a disambig page. Sorry bout that. Tuf-Kat 22:52, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Gooding

Please be careful when moving material to use the MOVE feature rather than cut-and-paste, otherwise you lose the history. If I'm wrong and you didn't do that, sorry. Quill 21:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed a link. See my talk page for more. Cheers. Quill 22:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note at my page Quill 03:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jodeci

Do you think I could merge your Jodeci article with this one? BigT27 03:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know you were rewriting that article. That was the original one I did a while ago. I doubt if I can help you, though. Your version already is perfect just the way it is. BigT27 04:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

K-Ci and JoJo

There, I've finished the article for K-Ci and JoJo. But I believe if we do separate articles on each member of Jodeci, they would probably be stubs. BigT27 05:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alvin and the Chipmunks

Hey...do you happen to know the original release dates for the records in the discography? The ones providd (I'm asuming they're from Amazon.com are for CD rereleases of old albums (for exampl, The Chipmunks Sing the Beatles is obviously a reissue of a 1960s release). I'm going to move the discography to the talk page for right now, so that we can find the correct release dates (years are fine). Just give me a minute to finish up a couple of other edits, and I will start looking up the info--SOMEbody on the internet has to have a complete Chipmunks discography. --b. Touch 23:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the dates are from Amazon. You never know, the Beatles release could actually have been new. Goodluck trying to find the content, the Chipmunk fanbase is more into fanfics and fan art than info. -- user:zanimum

I did find a few helpful links. I sourced info from [1], [2], and [3]. No need to wikilink; I doubt anyone's going to write an article for each of these albums. --b. Touch 00:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you're good. I'm impressed. I do have to agree that we can leave the wikilink off, a little unnecessary with so many albums. Thanks B Touch! -- user:zanimum

Happy to be Nappy

Re your kind note on Afro and Dreadlocks -- you're welcome. :-) Peace 2 u. deeceevoice

Our Gang

I'll be happy to comment. It still needs minor work--sorry--just spent about an hour proofreading and my browser froze before I 'saved'. I'll try again later. Quill 22:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disney stuff

My advice is to spell out your reasoning for keeping the list at its own page on talk, and leave a note on the talk page for the IP that keeps reinserting it. At that point, if he continues, you would be justified in continually reverting as long as you don't break the Three Revert Rule. Probably, he'll give up within a day or two. If he doesn't, you could start a request for comment that would probably result in him being considered a willful vandal, meaning he could be blocked. I doubt it would come to that, though -- just explain precisely why the list doesn't need to be duplicated on the talk page and revert no more than three times in one day. If you need someone else to revert a fourth time, you can let me or someone else know, and we can do it for you so you don't break the 3RR. Tuf-Kat 22:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)