User talk:Mtd2006/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

What kind of misconceptions?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Johnson article

Something very odd about that article (which I became aware of today) - seems to be a host of SPAs intend on removing any mention of her being on a shortlist. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very odd. That's why I started checking the references at Melanie Johnson's bio. I agree about SPAs. It's curious that one contributor makes numerous changes, then immediately requests that the article be protected [1] (on 2009-01-19 and again on 2009-02-04). Also, there's little discussion despite numerous reverts. Mtd2006 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Only just noticed the protection requests. This really is ridiculous. Anyway, thanks for all your contributions. --Shakehandsman (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

LTTE intro

Hey mtd, do you mind discussing what you think is wrong with the intro here? We were trying to come to a consensus what should be added/removed/modified in the intro. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 23:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will help. Thanks! --Mtd2006 (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nestor Aparicio

I received your message in regards to the refernece being their for the source material for the audio and video of the Nestor/Keith incident, but I do not see the website (gordonkeith.com)actually referenced nor is the info under the section for the incident accurate as Keith has discussed this incident at length several times on the radio and directed people to the website to hear/view it. Libel is only considered that if it is not true. I look forward to your response.Jack in Blue Mound (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope I can help. Please read WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. These explain libel and the problem with unfavorable information far better than I can. There's a link to the video in the Nestor Aparicio article. It's a citation in the text (see References). Look for the Dallas Sports Fans Blog. The Super Bowl incident was discussed in Talk:Nestor_Aparicio, but soon became an exchange about Keith and Nestor. The discussion was removed because of WP:BLP and WP:TALK problems. I suggest you restart the discussion at Talk:Nestor_Aparicio before making any changes that involve the "dustup" at the Super Bowl. --Mtd2006 (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

South Korea

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I just wanted to say thanks again for all the work you're putting into the South Korea article. And something you said on the talk page a while back just made it onto my list of nice quotes from Wikipedians. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A bit late, but I would also like to thank you and the others that have managed to build what appears to be a fairly robust discussion about this long-troubled page. Back in December 2008, I tried to get discussion going on the page (see Archive 4:Economy section-on for what I attempted at the time) but I wasn't very successful because the ones that were having a problem with others edits didn't want to talk. (It was pretty much User:RlndGunslinger and myself talking things over. I feel bad about RlndGunslinger, because once I left, he only managed to stay a few more weeks, it appears.)

In January a death in the family and other concerns took me out of the situation shortly before the page was unprotected. From what I can tell, these editors then returned to the page and continued as they had before. I'm glad to see that the ones that had been causing these problems appear to have been banned for sock puppetry and that you are all working on this page. I am no expert in South Korea, but I recognized the page as being poorly written. I have been a school media specialist and in my view such a page should be a good starting point for someone like a 10-, 11- or 12-year-old to get an overview of the country. It wasn't that, and personally, I think that it still tries to do a little too much, but it is much better. So, thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Don Quixote, out! KieferFL (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for your comments. I remember looking at your changes to the South Korea article, and wondering why your changes were lost. There seemed to be wide consensus for your work, but those who agreed systematically reverted your changes when you went on wiki-break. The economy section is a difficult one. There's new discussion at Talk:South_Korea#Economy_section where I mentioned your contribution. You're right. The article is poorly written. Many editors have made the same comment! The article reflects badly on South Korea. I hope it will improve. Mtd2006 (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Cryingnut

...is at it again. Take a look at the recent edit history: repeatedly reverting to some version before we started editing the article, removing references and undoing the ref formatting that we have done, adding questionable information and peacock terms. I had given him/her the benefit of the doubt before, but I'm beginning to suspect that it really is Manmohit/Ziggymaster/Mayamore again. Oh, joy... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I'm working on a draft revised introduction for the South Korea article. As I change my draft, I add to a talk page at User_talk:Mtd2006/Draft_of_South_Korea. I've mentioned the article from Encyclopedia Britannica (the world's most authoritative encyclopedia), at references problems. Are my remarks ready for the South Korea talk page? Let me know. I'll copy them when ready. Mtd2006 (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sea of Japan

Re this edit: do you think it's a good idea to visibly link to stuff in Wikipedia space like that, considering that it's generally supposed to be sort of "in the background" as far as readers are concerned? My usual course of action in these situations is to add a hidden note in the text, such as 

But, admittedly, I don't know how effective these hidden notes are. In some cases (one of the big offenders is Spoonerism), people continually ignore the note and make the edits anyway. Then again, there's no guarantee the same thing won't happen with this footnote. Any thoughts? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there should be no need for that note, but I thought I'd try it. I have the same note in my draft. I'm curious to know if anyone objects. Along the same line, I left the Cherry picking discussion up for a week. No comments except yours, so I changed the sentence about Seoul. Thanks for looking at the draft intro. I have too much info for the second paragraph (history) so it needs to be trimmed. I think the third paragraph should cover the economy. I need comments if I'm off track. Happy trails! Mtd2006 (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

South Korea introduction

hello, i aprreciate your contribution. your major delete is not consensed edit. [2] Your removed other users' contributions. you have no right it.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing sometimes involves removal of content. Problems with the introduction to South Korea are being discussed and have been a frequent topic. Please join the discussion at Talk:South Korea. Thank you. Mtd2006 (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ok. i changed its intro. its are well sourced material. and somebody need it. so, i just move it. not delete it. anyway thank you for your concern about south korea.Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:South Korea. There's no need to repeat your comments here. Thank you. Mtd2006 (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ok. now, its intro section is clear. no dispute need it. and i reverted your major delete. Please don't remove other user's contributions without their permit. and somebody need its material. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Will to Power (band)

Hello Mtd2006, you were the only one who commented about the changes I proposed to the group Will to Power's article before I went ahead, and I appreciate your addition of the infobox. It turned into a big drama (looks like there's a lot of that going around lately) and I didn't know if you might be interested in comparing what's there now with the way it looked before. If so, any comments or suggestions you have would be appreciated. But if not, no worries. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm in the middle of a big drama with the South Korea article, so one more will make my day. Mtd2006 (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that, actually, and I certainly don't want to add to any issues you are dealing with, since things like this can lead to frustration all around. Like I said, if you want to that's cool, but don't feel like you have to. Thanks again. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Your contributions to the article have improved Will to Power considerably. The fan-site quotes are gone, and replaced with credible, verifiable sources. On first impression, I noticed the improved outline of the material; the new organization gives the reader a story to follow. Suggestions (I'll post these to Talk:Will to Power if you want)

What happened to former member, Dr. J? Weren't Rosenberg, Dr. J and Mendez the original members of Will to Power?
The old version said Rosenberg founded the band with Dr. J and Mendez as members. The new version is unclear.
I'm confused by "After Rosenberg spent much of the previous year." When I read it, I wondered "which year?" and had to go back to reread the previous paragraph. Because the sentence is the lead of a new paragraph, it should read, "Rosenberg spent much 1987 working on new material with a variety of different musicians, including vocalists Carr, Maria Mendez, Donna Allen and Sandeé, keyboardists Lawrence Dermer and David Rosenthal and a DJ/saxophone player known as "Dr. J". The group's self-titled debut album..."
Legacy section is weak. It doesn't convince me of the band's significance.

The drama problem with Will to Power is like what happens on the South Korea article. Like you, I suggest changes but deafening silence ensues. However, when I change the article, the talk page fills with specious arguments, wild accusations fly in edit comments, etc.; and yet, still, no discussion about the changes. After all the drama, yours and mine are the only comments that discuss the article... and I'm not a contributor to the article. You remained calm, tried to open discussion, and improved the article despite disruption. Well done! Mtd2006 (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you really offer up some insightful comments! Thank you very much for taking some time to compare the versions and provide some constructive criticism...I really needed to hear that. The fact that you're not a contributor makes your opinion extremely valid to me, because sometimes the best thing is to get somebody outside of the drama to give an article the once-over. To be honest, based on your comment I thought you were declining to review it, which considering the circumstances on the South Korea article would have been understandable.

As far as the members of the group, well I was kind of trying to tread lightly on that topic, because I've read some conflicting versions of that aspect, and I didn't trust much of what was there before due to the COI and/or NPOV. AllMusic says Rosenberg, Dr. J and Mendez, but they could have gotten that from the previous article on here; the Billboard book says Rosenberg, Dr. J and Carr in December 1988 (and she contributed before that, which was the original sticking point) but doesn't mention Mendez at all; couldn't post the comments I read on a freestyle music blog that partially contradicted AllMusic, etc. Plus the three former members of the group Exposé were session singers, but how much of their vocals were used I don't know. I have absolutely no idea who "Dr. J" is, there's another man in the "Baby I Love Your Way" video who looks like the picture in the Billboard book, but at one point he plays drums, then later he plays keyboards, but never sax. I'm not even sure who either the male or female vocalists are for that song, the book walks around that point instead of addressing it, which makes me a bit suspicious (paging Milli Vanilli and Martha Wash, please pick up a courtesy telephone). The year I was referring to was aprx. June 1987 to June 1988, and I can see how that is worded vaguely. By the time I got to legacy I had almost regretted doing anything with the article at all, it had become such a headache, so I stuck to what seemed a fair disbursement of album reviews and clicked "save" with a sigh of relief. I agree that section should either be expanded or renamed, since I'm not sure what legacy they actually have today, but the pop and dance hits make the existence of an article of some kind valid.

Like I said, I got fed up and did my best to at least construct it fairly and neutrally, and my intention was to improve it, not necessarily make it a featured article. I went to EAR when I got frustrated, and I'm glad the advice of opening a discussion on the talk page was given, since that makes it easier to trace the actions thereafter. Thanks for the things you said, as well. I just needed some kind of validation for what I tried to do, it could definitely stand to be further improved but at least the foundation seems sturdier, if not completely solid. But I'm leaving it alone for a while at this point.

By the way, you didn't ask for my input, but I took just a cursory glance at South Korea (out of respect for what you did), and my initial observation was that the talk page is huge. Maybe archiving some of the older discussion might make it easier to figure out what the drama is all about there and reach a solution. Thanks again! Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "To be honest, based on your comment I thought you were declining to review it," you understood my mood perfectly, but common courtesy prevailed. I am overwhelmed by the South Korea problem and have considered a prolonged wiki-break. However, like you, I talked to a helpful admin, so I may have a new approach to follow. Good luck with the Will to Power article. Watch the article. It may be necessary to defend your changes against arbitrary reverts. Regards, Mtd2006 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)