Flurng

Welcome!

Hello, Flurng, 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:Questions, 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! --Flockmeal 05:54, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Flockmeal. Thank you for your comments, and in response, I'd like to point out the following;

>"Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay."<

I do like Wikipedia very much and am always impressed by just how comprehensive it is. It seems that there is an article concerning nearly anything I can think of!

>"I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!"<

I do, indeed enjoy editing articles and creating new ones. When I first ran across the article concerning the band Kansas, I was intrigued and decided to hunt around bit more. That's when I first realized I had something valuable to contribute, as I am somewhat of an aficionado of modern music.

(Unsigned but by Flurng aka Daryl Dubbs) 2005 Feb 6, 01:59

Coney Hatch

You have removed the reference to Colney Hatch from the top of Coney Hatch. I invite you to reconsider before I take action. I am easy on the exact wording of the cross reference. Bear in mind:

An italicised top line is a standard Wiki way of providing disambiguation. See for example frottage, noli me tangere, and London Borough of Croydon.
Where the band got the name from is a valid bit of Wiki content and if you can prove it has nothing to do with Colney Hatch, I will be very surprised.
Coney Hatch is the way Londoners pronounce the phrase so people seeking the Asylum might well type it your way and deserve to be redirected.
At least three bands a day get discussed on Votes for Deletion. How would your band fare in a VfD debate?

RHaworth 19:13, 2005 Feb 5 19:13 (GMT not UTC - I live within 20 miles of the Greenwich of the meridian)

With all due respect...

>"You have removed the reference to Colney Hatch from the top of Coney Hatch. I invite you to reconsider before I take action."<
I meant no disrespect in deleting the Colney Hatch reference from my article on Coney Hatch, the band. I simply mistook it for some automated clarification, in response to a perceived mis-spelling or redundant article. Should you wish to re-submit the reference to my article, by all means, be my guest. I offer my apologies for any transgressions on my part. I am, however concerned regarding your admonition to "reconsider before I take action". Sounds vaguely threatening. Just what "action" would you be contemplating?

>"At least three bands a day get discussed on Votes for Deletion. How would your band fare in a VfD debate?"<
Are you suggesting that you wish to recommend my article for deletion? If so, then be my guest. For that matter, just say the word and I will happily delete all of my contributions personally. While it makes no difference to me, it does seem misfortunate to deny others access to the information I have contributed. I was under the impression that, the beauty of Wikipedia, was that we all get to help enhance everyone else's experience at Wikipedia. Now, I'm not so sure that's the case. (Unsigned but by Flurng aka Daryl Dubbs) 2005 Feb 6, 01:59

Took me a while to find your reply! But what can I expect if I fail to sign my comments? I prefer people to reply on their own user page so we can see the thread easily. I always watch a user's page after I have posted a comment.

When I saw a straight reversion of my edit with nothing in the edit summary, I was afraid I had an edit war on my hands. So I acted as I did. The reference to VfD was a hint of retaliatory action I might take in the event of an edit war. But even as I wrote it, I knew it was an empty threat. None of your articles has even been through VfD so they probably are notable and would get a strong keep vote.

I am relieved to read your reply. I have put the link back with stronger wording as to the origin - thanks to the web site I have cited. Feel free to change (but not remove!) the italicised text.

(I probably would hate the music of any of the bands,etc. that you write about. I am into the sort of songs listed at Thematic Theory of Irish Music - have look quickly before it gets deleted.)

Cheers (I will remember to sign this time) RHaworth 12:06, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

With equal respect

Please learn to read edit histories. If you had looked at the histories you might have realised that the Coney Hatch mod was done by an human and realised where your reply to my edit on this page should be sent. And I do want you to look at the Coney Hatch History to see how restrained my changes to the page were. There are a lot of Wikipedians more obsessive than me!
Wikifying the entire corpus of your contributions is just the sort of 'action' I might have done. But I did not do it and I did not ask User:Niteowlneils to do it. Honest. In fact I extend my sympathies. I think that putting Wiki links around words like 'singer/songwriter, guitarist and keyboard player' is pointless (see this edit) - it does not add to the article - it just creates distraction. But you have to live with it - I have had it done to me.

RHaworth 19:07, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

The main problem with your articles and what makes them not yet proper Wikipedia articles is that they are awfully lonely - they are almost totally lacking in links to the rest of Wikipedia and the rest of Wikipedia is not yet aware of their existence. Take for example Martin Briley. The article has lots of outgoing links - which someone else put in for you. But look at Whatlinkshere Martin Briley. It is pathetic - there is just one real incoming link: Abbey Road Studios and that I have just created for you!

Get out there into the rest of Wikipedia - start creating links to your stuff: Canadian bands, Rock music of whatever sub-genre your protègés play, who your bands were influenced by, who they influenced, etc.

That is the trouble with Wikipedia - what may seem a simple edit soon mushrooms to enormous - if you are going to do it properly!

I shall overlook the fact that the Martin Briley article is a possible {{copyvio}} from here or here.

Whatever you may think of their tone, all my comments are meant to be constructive. Stick around in Wikiland. Cheers. -- RHaworth 08:05, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

One last (I hope) thing - change the colour scheme on http://home.mchsi.com/~coneyhatch/bandhist.htm, etc. I might read it but I am just not going to strain my eyes with red on a patterned grey background.

And any replies here please - I shall be watching. -- RHaworth 08:38, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Andy Curran

The argument is that until you want to write something about Andy Curran's life outside Coney Hatch, it is better to redirect. Revert my edit by all means, I just wanted to make sure you knew about redirects. -- RHaworth 06:44, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Hi! I ended up fixing Coney Hatch a little bit, as part of the Wiki Syntax project. I found the current redirects a bit confusing; what you end up with are four blue links on the band's article that take you right back where you started. I don't think this is what redirects were meant for, especially since, aside from one link from The Guess Who, none of them is being linked to.

IMO, they should either be deleted, or reverted to stubbed articles, which would make them much more susceptible to being improved. (Breaking a redirect to insert an article is probably intimidating to many people.) Fbriere 22:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Toronto Album Covers

Hello, just wanted to point out that Image:Toronto_girls.jpg, Image:Toronto_gno.jpg, and Image:Toronto_gno2.jpg seem to be orphaned images. However, I show that Image:Toronto_girls2.jpg is properly linked to the article (and seems to be the same image anyway). Just wanted to let you know that I have the first three set up for WP:IFD. - Eclipsael 22:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please tag Image:Coney_Hatch_band.jpg

Image copyright tags

Thanks for uploading Image:Coney_Hatch_band.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, JesseW 20:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Breaking Away (album)

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please do not revert the work of others who format your articles to fit the common style on Wikipedia. Rl 11:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Listen!

Hi. Please don't post song lyrics on Wikipedia. They are protected by copyright and we cannot legally use them. Thanks, FreplySpang (talk) 18:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Toronto girls2.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Toronto girls2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:Sony Hatch.JPG has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Sony Hatch.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image Tagging Image:Rather Be Rockin'.jpg

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Rather Be Rockin'.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Supercoop 20:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Image Tagging Image:Captain_Beyond_Photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Captain_Beyond_Photo.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, contact Carnildo.

Image copyright problem with Image:Silent_Auction.jpg

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:Silent_Auction.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply