User talk:Hulmem

I do not understand your obsession with adding so much information about LYNX to the Volusia County page. As presented, there is more information about Lynx now than there is about VOTRAN! Since you added text that is not documented on the LYNX page, perhaps you should add it there first? Gamweb (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made only two small edits to the LYNX information in the Volusia County article's Public Transportation topic, so I'm not sure how that qualifies as an obsession. The LYNX information was initially added not by me, but by 72.146.123.197 on 2009-04-11. Later that day I made an edit to correct grammatical and spelling errors in the Public Transportation topic, and added a cite for the LYNX information; but I did not add content. On 2009-04-16 you removed some of the LYNX content. Later that day, I added some of the content back in that I thought to be of value. The LYNX now consists of three sentences. The reason I thought this limited information on one LYNX route has value is that the route is an important public transportation link between Volusia County and the nearest large city, Orlando, so it may be of interest to those seeking information on public transportation to and from the County (as opposed to just within the County). I am not interested in LYNX as a topic itself, so I do not plan to edit the LYNX article. Hopefully you now understand the reasoning behind my two small edits. hulmem (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice.

And the commentary was a download from http:www.beastieboys.com to celebrate their re-release of Check your head. You can download it yourself if you want. --KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 00:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! wadester16 05:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read up on the WP:AIRPORTS guidelines. Unless the start date is 13 or more months from the current date, the year is assumed. As AA IAD-SJU begins next month..."Begins November 19" is good enough. Snoozlepet (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you applied a broader tag to this article. The article is entirely unsourced and well below Wikipedia standards. I believe it merits speedy deletion unless it is shored up a bit. I welcome your opinion. Best Regards I am the Botendaddy 12:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can find some sources - I think she is a notable person. hulmem (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see this little exchange, five months old now. I learned of Ms. Weil only two days ago, with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame honor (which makes your Oct. comment prescient, or at least well-informed); and I was led to do some work on the article. Then you checked back in over there, tuned a bit more. So today, looking back, I decided to stroll over here to see your story. (Nice for me not to have had any major reversals. Then additionally nice to see this comment.)

One follow-up: I had decided, in the process of my work, to leave the nephew's follow-on (we have to assume) career, given he's now prob. out of Wiki for the while completely; but I can see your point. Another: Don't know if you watch the "page view statistics", but CWeil spiked 4X on the 16th. Ellie Greenwich, with whom I followed about the same path as reviewed here re: Ms. Weil, also on the 16th, spiked 7X that day. (Stats can be tracked off the link, upper-right, on an article's "history" page.) I like it (all). ... Cheers. Swliv (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to state that I removed "inorganic" from the definition of the compound Silly Putty for 2 reasons, 1) no cite provided that it is inorganic 2) the compound is actually both organic and inorganic in nature so it is misleading to label either organic or inorganic. You put me on notice for adding material without a cite, when I in fact removed material that did not have a cite. It is more accurate just to keep it as a "Polymer" (Note that I did not label it "Organic"). EricSGrow (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your recent comments at User talk:Levineps; note that the question is now being considered here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Are you disputing that Lauren Scheff is Jerry Scheff's son? The whole thing is incredibly bizarre. For years, Lauren was listed as his son, and Jason acknowledged him as his brother on various web sites. Dawayne Bailey also refers to him as such. Suddenly, there was some campaign to remove these references. Do you know what happened? If there was some family falling out, that's none of our business and we should still list him as a sibling. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of anything nefarious going on. I am not disputing that Lauren Scheff is Jerry Scheff's son; I have no knowledge of whether or not that statement is true. There simply have been no citations for these statements when they have been added to the article. Citations are required for all article content (see WP:CITE, but especially for biographies of living persons (see WP:BLP. So if you can cite reliable sources for the statements, please add the statements to the article with citations. --hulmem (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well an IP removed it again. I'm stymied. I re-read the source, and it's possible that Lauren is Jason and Darin's brother (that much is clear) but not Jerry's son (ie different father). I guess I'll leave it out for now until I find a clear source. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We did some Hal Blaine stuff a while back. I am still hard at work on his career and recently set up a category that is now up for deletion. I just received the following message:

I have nominated Category:Hal Blaine Strikes Again (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk)

Please think it over. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up at the list link, which will no doubt need work too. Life is good. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC) - PS I have no idea where this tiny font is coming from. I'm an old guy - I need BIG font, but . . ....[reply]

• Sure, I may get around to doing such a list for Joe Osborn. It one point there was a list in the Osborn article itself, but someone deleted the list from the article; so at least I can go back to the article history for a starting point. It is likely that Blaine played on nearly all of those songs, although Earl Palmer or Jim Gordon probably played on a small number. --hulmem (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• BrownHairedGirl's signature had a "small" start tag but no "small" end tag. Problem solved. --hulmem (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thumb|111px|right Here is my reference for writing that Hal played on No Matter What Shape Your Stomach Is In. Please mull it over and act accordingly. I am interested in continuing the list but not if it involves too much back tracking. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I knew you had a reference when you started the list, but I thought someone else added that song and it conflicted with the sketchy info on allmusic. I added it back in. I generally would only revert something if I can't find anything to substantiate it, and in this case I had found something that potentially conflicted. But the book you cited trumps that. Is the book good? I don't have it and the 3rd edition comes out March 15. --hulmem (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book is (opinion) a must for any serious student of the LA session scene. And since you actually care about this stuff I'm guessing that this would include you. It is unfortunate that Joe Osborn never wrote such a work. Others such as Tommy Tedesco's book are sort of disappointing. For drums (which is my main area of interest) The Big Beat by Max Weinberg is another must. But as you know, mostly ifno is gained one song or album at a time. Carptrash (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Hulmem, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User talk:Hulmem. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had the Musician Guide site turned down at Talk:Shenandoah_(band)/GA1 as unreliable. It was also turned down here (the grey "issues resolved" tab) and here as unreliable. Furthermore, we don't know who can contribute to the site; what their credentials are; who's editing it, if anyone; or anything at all about the site. I tracked it down with Domain Tools and it's apparently hosted out of a household in Urbana, Illinois and the owner has a Gmail address. Given the lack of editorial policy, as well as the fact that it was shot down as unreliable in two FA discussions and one GA discussion, there seems to be a slight consensus that it's indeed unreliable. If you want, be bold and see if you can find another source that verifies the info more reliably. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't see how it is appropriate to remove the potentially questionable citation without removing the article text sourced from the cited reference — because that text would also be questionable. Now you have text that is uncited; at least if someone questioned the text, with the cite still included they could see where the information came from. I think the far better thing to do would be to first find a reliable source and update the article text if the reliable source calls into question information from the "bad" source; then remove the cite for the questionable source. --hulmem (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you know, mike, i just read your "warnings" on my posting about the four aces. if you knew anything, you'd realize that these are not my views, but the views of a majority of people who know anything about what happened with this law suit. so you can ban me or do whatever the hell you'd like, but i just wanted to remind you of the facts. and no, i don't have a reference for your little website. must feel good having all the "power," eh? have fun with that. pathetic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.163.4 (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator; I'm just an editor like you, so I have no power and this is not my little website! You are correct that I don't know anything about The Four Aces. However, I do understand Wikipedia editing guidelines. I added the notices and just added the welcome at the top of your page to help you understand Wikipedia editing guidelines. I'm sure you are trying to make good faith edits and I sincerely hope you continue to edit Wikipedia articles following the guidelines. -- hulmem (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point of topic. Recently without a user name, I edited the Department Of Motor Vehicles page to reflect "the fact" that it is a Corperation. I left factual citation. It isn't my fault if you do not read the citation and understand it. It was the Department of motor vehicles. Not just a company with the same initials. If you look up the Corperate Headquarters Of the DMV On Dunn & Bradstreet, the number one world excepted source on Corperate information. It is the same as the Sacremento Department Of Moter Vehicles. ^[1][2] There is the Dunn & Bradstreet Listing refference, the yellow pages listing for the California DMV headquarters, as an example of a corelating address & the wikipedia page confirming the status of the D&B as the number source of information on this subject!^[3].

You may not agree, but it is a fact, the goverment sub agency as you are trying to call it, is in fact a Corperation. Not exactly a government agency, like NASA. Please in the future, before you edit pages, just because you think the people that made the edit are completely stupid, remember that doesn't make it so. Bother to look at and properly soak in the information first please! To leave out the fact that the DMV is a corperation in every state in the US but two. Is a travisty. Regardless of what laws made it so, this is the case. How many more accurate refferences should I include, 200? Because I can. There are over a dozen websites out there that are dedicated to this point. All with citations and refferences. Dig? In fact, issues like this, are the reason why Democratic Encyclopedias may in fact fail. The masses do not always know or understand the truth, they just think they do based on commonly excepted falsehoods, like "I have to pay my income taxes". In the U.S. there is no legal bases for this^[4]. Same thing with the DMV, it is a Corperation, not an actual state government agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegooddoctorisin (talk • contribs) 06:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike - I see you reinstated the Keith Moon coincidence stuff on Cass Elliot. Not going to edit war, so I left a comment on Talk with my reasoning for removing it - we can talk about it over there. (And by the way, I agree with you about Brian Wilson.) Cheers Tvoz/talk 07:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here some important articles (<5%) who mention «Mediator in the architecture of future information systems» as fundamental.

Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing by Thomas R. Gruber — 1993 — IN FORMAL ONTOLOGY IN CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS AND KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION, KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS, IN PRESS. SUBSTANTIAL REVISION OF PAPER PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON FORMAL ONTOLOGY

GroupLens: An Open Architecture for Collaborative Filtering of Netnewsby Paul Resnick, Neophytos Iacovou, Mitesh Suchak, Peter Bergstrom, John Riedl — 1994

Object exchange across heterogeneous information sources by Yannis Papakonstantinou, Hector Garcia-molina, Jennifer Widom — 1995 — INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DATA ENGINEERING

The TSIMMIS Project: Integration of Heterogeneous Information Sources by Sudarshan Chawathe, Hector Garcia-Molina, Joachim Hammer, Kelly Ireland, Yannis Papakonstantinou, Jeffrey Ullman, Jennifer Widom

Software Agents by Michael R. Genesereth, Steven P. Ketchpel — 1994 — Communications of the ACM

Information integration using logical views by Jeffrey D. Ullman — 1997

TSIMMIS Approach to Mediation: Data Models and Languages by Hector Garcia-molina, Yannis Papakonstantinou, Dallan Quass, Yehoshua Sagiv, Jeffrey Ullman, Vasilis Vassalos, Jennifer Widom — 1997 —Journal of Intelligent Information Systems

Answering Queries Using Views: A Survey by Alon Y. Halevy — 2000

PROMPT: Algorithm and Tool for Automated Ontology Merging and Alignment by Natalya Fridman Noy, Mark A. Musen — 2000

Software agents: An overview by Hyacinth S. Nwana — 1996 — Knowledge Engineering Review

EDUTELLA: A P2P Networking Infrastructure Based on RDF by Wolfgang Nejdl, Boris Wolf, Changtao Qu, Stefan Decker, Michael Sintek Ambjörn Naeve, Mikael Nilsson, Matthias Palmer, Tore Risch — 2001

Supporting Multiple Access Control Policies in Database Systems by Elisa Bertino, Sushil Jajodia, Pierangela Samarati — 1996 — ACM Transactions on Database Systems

Query Caching and Optimization in Distributed Mediator Systems by S. Adali, K. S. Candan, Y. Papakonstantinou, V. S. Subrahmanian — 1996 — In Proc. of ACM SIGMOD Conf. on Management of Data

Using semantic values to facilitate interoperability among heterogeneous information systems by Edward Sciore, Michael Siegel, Arnon Rosenthal — 1994 — ACM Transactions on Database Systems

Object fusion in mediator systems by Yannis Papakonstantinou, Serge Abiteboul, Hector Garcia-molina — 1996 — INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON VERY LARGE DATA BASES

Context Interchange: New Features and Formalisms for the Intelligent Integration of Information by Cheng Hian Goh — 1997 — ACM Transactions on Information Systems

A Query Translation Scheme for Rapid Implementation of Wrappers by Yannis Papakonstantinou, Ashish Gupta, Hector Garcia-molina, Jeffrey Ullman — 1995

MedMaker: A Mediation System Based on Declarative Specifications by Yannis Papakonstantinou, Hector Garcia-molina, Jeffrey Ullman — 1996 — INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DATA ENGINEERING

SilkRoute: Trading between Relations and XML by Mary Fernández, Wang-Chiew Tan, Dan Suciu — 1999

Semi-automatic Wrapper Generation for Internet Information Sources by Naveen Ashish, Craig Knoblock — 1997 — In Conference on Cooperative Information Systems

Super-Peer-Based Routing and Clustering Strategies for RDF-Based Peer-to-Peer Networks by Wolfgang Nejdl, Martin Wolpers, Wolf Siberski, Christoph Schmitz, Mario Schlosser, Ingo Brunkhorst, Alexander Löser — 2002

A Framework for Supporting Data Integration Using the Materialized and Virtual Approaches by Richard Hull, Gang Zhou — 1996

XML-Based Information Mediation with MIX by Chaitanya Baru, Amarnath Gupta, Bertram Ludäscher, Richard Marciano, Yannis Papakonstantinou, Pavel Velikhov — 1999

Data Cleaning: Problems and Current Approachesby Erhard Rahm, Hong Hai Do — 2000 — IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin

Multimedia Database Systems by Sherry Marcus, V. S. Subrahmanian — 1993 — Journal of the ACM

The Chatty Web: Emergent Semantics Through Gossiping by Karl Aberer, Philippe Cudré-Mauroux, Manfred Hauswirth — 2003

Cartel: a distributed mobile sensor computing system by Bret Hull, Vladimir Bychkovsky, Yang Zhang, Kevin Chen, Michel Goraczko, Allen Miu, Eugene Shih, Hari Balakrishnan, Samuel Madden — 2006 — In 4th ACM

SenSys Composing Mappings among Data Sources by Jayant Madhavan, Alon Y. Halevy — 2003 — In VLDB

Quality-driven Integration of Heterogeneous Information Systems by Felix Naumann, Ulf Leser, Johann-Christoph Freytag — 1999 — In VLDB Conference

SHOE: A Knowledge Representation Language for Internet Applications by Jeff Heflin, James Hendler, Sean Luke — 1999

Category translation: learning to understand information on the internet by Mike Perkowitz, Oren Etzioni — 1995 — In Proc. 15th International Joint Conference on AI

Information Integration: Conceptual Modeling and Reasoning Support by Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini, Daniele Nardi, Riccardo Rosati — 1998 — In Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS’98)

Scaling access to heterogeneous data sources with DISCO by Anthony Tomasic, Louiqa Raschid, Patrick Valduriez — 1998 — IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

The MOMIS approach to Information Integration by Domenico Beneventano, Sonia Bergamaschi, Francesco Guerra, Maurizio Vincini — 2001

Loading Data into Description Reasoners by Alex Borgida, Ronald J. Brachman — 1993

Integrating and Accessing Heterogeneous Information Sources in TSIMMIS by Hector Garcia-Molina, Joachim Hammer, Kelly Ireland, Yannis Papakonstantinou, Jeffrey Ullman, Jennifer Widom — 1995 — In Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium on Information Gathering

Multiagent Systems and Societies of Agents by Michael N. Huhns, Larry M. Stephens — 1999

Procedure Calls Are the Assembly Language of Software Interconnection: Connectors Deserve First-Class Status by Mary Shaw — 1994

DATA INTEGRATION IN DATA WAREHOUSING by Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini, Daniele Nardi, Riccardo Rosati — 2001

CoBase: A Scalable and Extensible Cooperative Information System by Wesley W. Chu, Hua Yang, Kuorong Chiang, Michael Minock, Gladys Chow, Chris Larson, Gio Wiederhold — 1996

Answering Queries Using Views: A Survey by Alon Y. Levy — 2001 — VLDB Journal

Structured Development of Problem Solving Methods by Dieter Fensel, Enrico Motta — 2001 — IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

Distributed First Order Logics by C. Ghidini, L. Serafini — 1998

Mind Your Vocabulary: Query Mapping Across Heterogeneous Information Sources by Chen-chuan K. Chang, Héctor García-Molina — 1999

Building Intelligent Web Applications Using Lightweight Wrappers by Arnaud Sahuguet, Fabien Azavant — 2000

K2Kleisli and GUS: Experiments in Integrated Access to Genomic Data Sources by Susan B. Davidson, Jonathan Crabtree, Brian Brunk, Jonathan Schug, Val Tannen, Chris Overton, Chris Stoeckert — 2001 — IBM Systems Journal

Toward Autonomic Web Services Trust and Selection by E. Michael Maximilien, Munindar P. Singh — 2004

Mobile Wireless Computing: Solutions and Challenges in Data Management by Tomasz Imielinski, B. R. Badrinath — 1993 — Communications of the ACM

Architecture and Quality in Data Warehouses: an Extended Repository Approach by Matthias Jarke, Manfred Jeusfeld, Christoph Quix, Panos Vassiliadis — 1999

Ontology-based integration of XML Web resources by Bernd Amann, Catriel Beeri, Irini Fundulaki, Michel Scholl — 2002 — In Proc. International Semantic Web Conference 2002

Capability Based Mediation in TSIMMIS by Chen Li, Ramana Yerneni, Vasilis Vassalos, Hector Garcia-molina, Yannis Papakonstantinou, Jeffrey Ullman, Murty Valiveti — 1998 — In Proc. of ACM SIGMOD

Liquid Software: A New Paradigm for Networked Systems by John Hartman, Udi Manber, Larry Peterson, Todd Proebsting — 1996

A Conceptual Architecture for Semantic Web Enabled Web Services by Christoph Bussler, Dieter Fensel — 2002 — SIGMOD Record

Computing Capabilities of Mediators by Ramana Yerneni, Chen Li, Hector Garcia-Molina, Jeffrey Ullman EDUTELLA: Searching and Annotating Resources within an RDF-based P2P Network by Wolfgang Nejdl, Boris Wolf, Steffen Staab, Julien Tane — 2001

Generic Model Management: Concepts and Algorithms by Sergey Melnik — 2003 — PH.D. THESIS

The KRAFT Architecture for Knowledge Fusion and Transformation by Alun Preece, Kit Hui, Alex Gray, Philippe Marti, Trevor Bench-Capon, Dean Jones, Zhan Cui — 1999

Ontology-Based Configuration of Problem-Solving Methods and Generation of Knowledge-Acquisition Tools: Application of PROTG-II to Protocol-Based Decision Support by Samson W. Tu, Henrik Eriksson, John Gennari, Yuval Shahar, Mark A. Musen

Representing and reasoning about semantic conflicts in heterogeneous information systems by Cheng Hian Goh — 1997

A Distributed and Anonymous Knowledge Sharing Approach to Software Interoperation by Michael Genesereth, Narinder P. Singh, Mustafa A. Syed — 1994 — International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems

Ozone: Integrating Structured and Semistructured Data by Tirthankar Lahiri, Serge Abiteboul, Jennifer Widom — 2000

Formal Methods in DAI: Logic-Based Representation and Reasoning by Munindar P. Singh, et al.

Optimizing Large Join Queries in Mediation Systems by Ramana Yerneni, Chen Li, Jeffrey Ullman, Hector Garcia-molina — 1999 — International Conference on Database Theory

MetaMorph: An Adaptive Agent-Based Architecture for Intelligent Manufacturing by Francisco Maturana, Weiming Shen, Douglas H. Norrie — 1999 — International Journal of Production Research

Multiple View Consistency for Data Warehousing by Yue Zhuge, Janet L. Wiener, Hector Garcia-molina — 1997 — in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering

An Equational Chase for Path-Conjunctive Queries, Constraints, and Views by Lucian Popa, Val Tannen — 1999 — In ICDT

Physical Data Independence, Constraints, and Optimization With Universal Plans by Alin Deutsch, Lucian Popa, Val Tannen — 1999 — In VLDB

Distributed Data Integration By Object-Oriented Mediator Servers by Tore Risch, Vanja Josifovski — 2001

Enhancing Semistructured Data Mediators with Document Type Definitions by Yannis Papakonstantinou, Pavel Velikhov — 1999

Advanced Video Information System: Data Structures and Query Processing by Sibel Adali, Kasim S. Candan, Kasim S. C, Su-shing Chen, Kutluhan Erol, V. S. Subrahmanian — 1996 — Multimedia Systems

The OO-Method approach for information systems modeling: from object-oriented conceptual modeling to automated programming by Oscar Pastor, Jaime Gomez, Emilio Insfran, Vicente Pelechano — 2001

Automatic Migration and Wrapping of Database Applications - a Schema Transformation Approach by Peter McBrien, Peter M, Alexandra Poulovassilis — 1999

Start making sense: The Chatty Web approach for global semantic agreements by Karl Aberer, Philippe Cudré-Mauroux, Manfred Hauswirth — 2003 — Journal of Web Semantics

An Adaptive Approach to Query Mediation across Heterogeneous Information Sources by Ling Liu, Calton Pu, Yooshin Lee — 1996

Defining Peer-to-Peer Data Integration Using Both as View Rules by Peter McBrien, Alexandra Poulovassilis, Ra Poulovassilis — 2004

Predicate Rewriting for Translating Boolean Queries in a Heterogeneous Information System by Chen-chuan K. Chang, Hector Garcia-Molina, Name Chen-chuan, K. Chang, Name Hector Garca-molina, Andreas Paepcke, Andreas Paepcke — 1996

The Distributed Interoperable Object Model and Its Application to Large-scale Interoperable Database Systems by Ling Liu, Calton Pu — 1995 — In ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management.

Semantic Overlay Clusters within Super-Peer Networks by Alexander Löser, Er Löser, Felix Naumann, Wolf Siberski, Wolfgang Nejdl, Uwe Thaden — 2003 — In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Databases, Information Systems and Peer-to-Peer Computing, 2003 (DBISP2P 03).

Knowledge-Based Integration of Neuroscience Data Sources by Amarnath Gupta, Bertram Ludascher, Maryann E. Martone — 2000

Query Planning with Limited Source Capabilities by Chen Li, Edward Chang — 1999 — International Conference on Data Engineering

Integrating Heterogeneous Overlapping Databases Through Object-Oriented Transformations by Vanja Josifovski, Tore Risch — 1999

Mediating Among Diverse Data Formats by John Ockerbloom, William L. Scherlis, Jeannette Wing — 1998

Multiagent System Engineering: the Coordination Viewpoint by Paolo Ciancarini, Andrea Omicini, Franco Zambonelli — 1999

On Answering Queries in the Presence of Limited Access Patterns by Chen Li, Edward Chang — 2001 — In Proc. of ICDT 2001

Expressive Capabilities Description Languages and Query Rewriting Algorithms by Vasilis Vassalos, Yannis Papakonstantinou — Journal of Logic Programming

Ontologies in Support of Problem Solving by Monica Crubézy, Mark A. Musen — 2003 — HANDBOOK ON ONTOLOGIES

An Adaptive Object-oriented Approach to Integration and Access of Heterogeneous Information Sources by Ling Liu, Calton Pu — 1997 — DISTRIBUTED AND PARALLEL DATABASES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

The Search Broker by Udi Manber, Peter A. Bigot — 1997

USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and SystemsLogic And Algebraic Languages For Interoperability In Multidatabase Systems by Laks V. S. Lakshmanan, Fereidoon Sadri, Iyer N. Subramanian — 1997

Information Integration in Schema-Based Peer-To-Peer Networks by Alexander Löser, Er Löser, Wolf Siberski, Martin Wolpers, Wolfgang Nejdl — 2003 — In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of

An Ontology-based Broker: Making Problem-Solving Method Reuse Work by Dieter Fensel — 1997 — In Proc. of the IJCAI-97 Workshop on Problem-Solving Methods for Knowledge-Based Systems

Flexible and Scalable Cost-Based Query Planning in Mediators: A Transformational Approach by José Luis Ambite, Craig A. Knoblock — 2000 — Artificial Intelligence Journal

A Case for Staged Database Systems by Stavros Harizopoulos, Anastassia Ailamaki — 2003 — In Proceedings of 1st Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research

Adding Conflict Resolution Features to a Query Language for Database Federations by Kai-Uwe Sattler, Stefan Conrad, Gunter Saake — 2000 — AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Learning Response Time for WebSources using Query Feedback and Application in Query Optimization by Jean-robert Gruser, Louiqa Raschid, Vladimir Zadorozhny — 1999 — VLDB Journal

Context knowledge representation and reasoning by Stephane Bressan, Cheng Goh, Natalia Levina, Stuart Madnick, Ahmed Shah, Michael Siegel — 2000 — in the Context Interchange System” , Applied Intelligence: The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Neutral Networks, and Complex Problem-Solving Technologies, Vol 12, Number 2

Composing Pervasive Data Using iQL by Norman H. Cohen, Hui Lei, Paul Castro, John S. Davis Ii, Apratim Purakayastha — 2002 — In Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications

On implementing a language for specifying active database execution models by Shahram Gh, Ltichard Hull, Dean Jacobs, Jaime Castillo, Martha Escobar-molano, Shih-hui Lu, Junhui Luo, Chiu Tsang, Gang Zhou — 1993 — Models, Procs. Int. Conf. on Very Large Databases

Information Brokering across Heterogeneous Digital Data: A Metadata-based Approach by Vipul Kashyap, Amit Sheth — 2000

Context Interchange: Sharing the Meaning of Data by Michael Siegel — 1991 — SIGMOD record

Managing heterogeneous transaction workflows with cooperating agents by Michael N. Huhns, Munindar P. Singh — 1998 — In N.R. Jennings and M. Wooldridge, (eds). Agent Technology: Foundations, Applications and Markets. Springer-Verlag

Providing Security and Interoperation of Heterogeneous Systems by Steven Dawson, Shelly Qian, Vijay Atluri — 1998 — Distributed and Parallel Databases

Overview of a prolog implementation of the context interchange mediator by Stéphane Bressan, Kofi Fynn, Cheng Hian, Goh Stuart, E. Madnick, Tito Pena, Michael D. Siegel — 1997 — Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Practical Applications of Prolog

Semantic Interoperation Via Intelligent Mediation by Xiaolei Qian — 1993 — In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering: Interoperability in Multidatabase Systems

Ontology reconciliation by Adil Hameed, Alun Preece, Derek Sleeman — 2004 — Handbook of ontologies, International handbooks on information systems, chapter 12

Intelligent Visualization and Exploration of Time-Oriented Clinical Data by Yuval Shahar, Cleve Cheng — 1999 — Topics in Health Information Management

Global information management via local autonomous agents by Michael N. Huhns, Munindar P. Singh, Tomasz Ksiezyk — 1994 — In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence

Token-Templates and Logic Programs for Intelligent Web Search by Bernd Thomas — 2000 — March-June 2000. Special Issue: Methodologies for Intelligent Information Systems

Functional Data Integration in a Distributed Mediator System by Tore Risch, Vanja Josifovski, Timour Katchaounov — 2003

A Logical Semantics for Object-Oriented Databases by Jos'e Meseguer, Xiaolei Qian — 1993 — In Proc. International SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data

Applying Agents to Bioinformatics in GeneWeaver by K. Bryson, M. Luck, M. Joy, D. T. Jones — 2000

A Hybrid Agent-Oriented Infrastructure for Modeling Manufacturing Enterprises by Weiming Shen, Douglas H. Norrie — 1998 — In Proceedings of the Knowledge Acquisition Workshop

Semantics-based Information Brokeringby Vipul Kashyap, Amit Sheth — 1994 — In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM)

Transactional Coordination Agents for Composite Systems by Heiko Schuldt, Hans-Jörg Schek, Gustavo Alonso — 1999 — In Proceedings of the 3 rd International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium(IDEAS'99)

Model-Based Visualization of Temporal Abstractions by Yuval Shahar, Cleve Cheng — 1998

BQ: A Visual Interface for Integrated Browsing and Querying of XML by Kevin D. Munroe, Yannis Papakonstantinou — 2000

Integrating GIS and Imagery through XML-based Information Mediation by Amarnath Gupta, Richard Marciano, Ilya Zaslavsky, Chaitanya Baru — 1999 — In P. Agouris and A. Stefanidis (Eds.) Integrated Spatial Databases: Digital Images and GIS, Lecture Notes in Computer Science

An Agent-Based Manufacturing Enterprise Infrastructure for Distributed Integrated Intelligent Manufacturing Systems by Weiming Shen, Deyi Xue, Douglas H. Norrie — 1998 — IN PROCEEDINGS THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF INTELLIGENT AGENTS AND MULTI-AGENT SYSTEMS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.9.118 (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to copy and paste this information, but I am struggling to understand why you did it and what you mean by it. I assume you are writing in response my edit to Service oriented architecture that removed the statement, "This [Service oriented] architecture has been created by Gio Wiederhold..."; but your information above seems to provide no basis that Gio Wiederhold created SOA.

First, read the Gio Wiederhold Paper, second, search comparable previous (in date) other paper.

I have questions about your opening statement, "Here some important articles (<5%) who [sic] mention «Mediator in the architecture of future information systems» as fundamental."

1. Every one of these articles is important? Yes!

What makes them important? The science motor is the peer recognition.

1. Every one of these articles contains the statement "Mediator in the architecture of future information systems is fundamental" or something to that effect? No one exist without it (or in it's current form like Software Agents).

1. Less than five percent of what? Less than 5% of important articles that mention Mediator in the architecture of future information systems as fundamental? Yes, in importance order

Are there really 20 times this many articles that mention Mediator in the architecture of future information systems as fundamental? Yes, this is the rule of the citation in science.

1. What do you mean by "fundamental" in this context? In general, no one exist without it.

So what if there are articles that mention "Mediator in the architecture of future information systems as fundamental"? Without research in this field and industry product created in response of the result of the research, SOA don't exists.

What does "fundamental" have to do with creating SOA? My edit to the article removed the statement, "This [Service oriented] architecture has been created by Gio Wiederhold..." The sentence had a cited reference, but I don't beleive the cited reference states that Gio Wiederhold created SOA. Even if it did, the cited reference was written by Wiederhold and is therefore a primary source, which needs a secondary source as verification (see WP:PSTS). —hulmem (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the Exposé article I have added another source from a Billboard book written and researched by Fred Bronson that makes it clear all 3 original singers were fired. Do not remove my sources again please. Billboard IS a WP:reliable source that pretty much backs up People. Caden ^cool 00:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming up with a more reliable source (Billboard) and for correcting your original edit to reflect the statements in the reliable source. The Billboard article does not back up the People article; it contradicts it (People says two were fired and one quit whereas Billboard says all three were fired). There is no merit to citing an unreliable source and then trying to find a reliable source to back it up — just use the reliable source. I read the cited People article and it is not written in a journalistic or factual style; it is written in a gossipy and opinionated style. I will continue to remove statements referenced from unreliable sources and the citations to the unreliable sources in accordance with WP:SOURCES and in this case WP:BLP. If you have not done so already I strongly recommend you read and become familiar with WP:SOURCE.

For the Exposé article, I suggest you consider removing the contradicting and unreliable People reference and letting the Billboard reference stand on its own.

Also, for future reference, you can reduce reference clutter when citing the same source multiple times by naming the reference and then using the named reference in subsequent occurrences as described at WP:REFNAME.

— hulmem (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fred Bronson Billboard book of Number One Hits supports the People article in regards to the personnel having changed during the recording of the group's debut album. It again supports the article concerning the group's hit songs as well as other things. However, you're correct, both sources differ slightly in terms of how many members were fired. But that's not a problem. I've made it clear in the article to show readers that both sources contradict eachother. The readers can decide for themselves what they want to believe. There are also no BLP issues. People did not give the names of the original singers who were fired. But Billboard did the exact opposite by naming all 3 of the original girls and stating that they were fired. On a side-note, I disagree with you over People magazine. It's reliable in my opinion. This magazine has been in business for 36 years, it has covered major stories, covered major wars, world events, and interviewed many public figures. I've seen the magazine used in dozens of articles as a source and I have never heard from any editor that it is considered unreliable. If this magazine is good enough to be listed as a source in The Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature, then it's good enough for me and wikipedia. Caden ^cool 20:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latest headlines from the People web site: "Gabourey Sidibe's New Celeb Crush – No, Not Justin Timberlake!" — "Kirk Was 'Bruised and Banged Up' After the Bachelorette Update" — "Report: Paris Hilton Busted at Airport with Pot in Her Purse" — "Courtney Love's Daughter Reveals Her Dark, Ghoulish Art" — "All the Details of Carrie's Two Custom Wedding Dresses" — "Oksana Grigorieva Leans on Her Ex Timothy Dalton for Support" — "Ali Fedotowsky: Ending Up Alone Is a 'Strong Possibility'" — "Mel & Oksana: Why Their Custody Battle Went Nuclear". So hopefully you can see that an editor might consider People to be written in a gossipy, opinionated, and sensationalist style, not a particularly reliable source for citing facts, and therefore not well suited as a reference in Wikipedia. I'm not saying everything in People is wrong, but that any "facts" in People may or may not be correct and therefore should not be assumed to be correct. I can see that I'm not likely to convince you that it is not a reliable source and of course you are not going to convince me it is a reliable source. But I guess you will no longer be able to say that you "have never heard from any editor that it [People] is considered unreliable." Thanks for taking the time to discuss. --hulmem (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say now, your choice of words implies that I am deliberately trying to fool people in the Beach Boys article. "Misleading?" Kinda harsh there, bro. As an established Wikipedian who enjoys the Beach Boys and has done a fair amount of work on a couple bandmember's pages, I find myself taken aback by your choice of terms.

That said, I thank you for the additional material you brought to the section. The Las Vegas Sun material re: Brian Wilson had escaped my notice.

I think the article could use some additional work, as could all the bandmembers' pages (last I looked.) I'd be happy to edit with you further on them as possible. Best wishes, Jusdafax 00:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My words certainly do not imply that you were deliberately trying to fool people, but apparently you mistakenly inferred that. I didn't know or assume your motives. If anything, I assumed you were making good faith edits and it was not your intent to mislead. I didn't say you (the author of the edit) were misleading, but that the text was misleading. I try to avoid taking comments by editors on text I edited as commentary on me personally.

The statement, "There was no reported confirmation from Wilson's manager" is quite different from the statement in the article, "Brian Wilson's manager, Jean Sievers, says she's unfamiliar with reunion plans". Perhaps you were just trying to paraphrase or draw a conclusion. Although the use of the word "unfamiliar" seems to me a little ambiguous in this context, I would think that Wilson's manager would know of any reunion plans and that if she is unfamiliar with any plans it is not likely there are any. The fact that Love made a similar statement a month ago but then completely backed down makes this whole section dubious in my view, although I would certainly like a reunion concert to happen (especially if it is a free concert on the National Mall near where I live).

I enjoy the Beach Boys as well, especially Brian Wilson's work, and would be glad to help with the Beach Boys and band member articles (well, except maybe Love's). I really appreciate all the good work you've done editing the articles. —hulmem (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and it is clear I misunderstood your intent. Obviously if there is any consensus to pull the section, then that's that. It's a bit edgy, but I still think it falls on the right side of "the line". The articles I worked hard on were Brian's and Davis Marks', though the Marks article got mangled afterwards. Let's talk further! Jusdafax 06:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm sorry I didn't respond to your comment, but I didn't notice it because someone else posted something on my talk page immediately after you, and that was what I saw when I last had a message waiting. The matter of the date linking was a very fraught one, but in the end it was agreed that the Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot would not unlink dates in Year in Topic articles (Year in Music, etc). Despite this, the bot did wrongly unlink these articles, as you can see from its criteria. They should remain linked because of the nature of the article. Deb (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for removing the opinion the SAn Francisco(be sure to wear flowers in your hair) was a "generational anthem". I am from that generation and even though Hal Blaine was playing on it, it's no anthem. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That show was indeed a victim of the CBS "rural purge". But the stuff about What's My Line? is obviously an editor drawing inferrences. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while the "rural purge" is true, there is already a whole section in the article devoted to that. The rest of the edit was either a prose duplication of the ratings table or original research/editorializing. --hulmem (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, rescinding notification. Just wanted you to know this is not an edit war. This is another type of war, and I am losing. Please try to keep out of it, I humbly ask you.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 04:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK --hulmem (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding this edit, the correct title of the song is "And Your Dream Comes True", not "And Your Dreams Come True" (see musicbrainz album listing and discogs album photographs). What I was trying to do was point out that the reference used the wrong song title (although I see I also got it wrong in my edit summary). —Bruce1ee^talk 10:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change in Chip Douglas's full name by deleting "Walter". I am a close friend of his and it truly was his request. However it is indeed true that there is no official "source" I can quote since he asked me to make the change through personal conversations and emails including the one I received from him on 8 March.

In such a case, what do you think would be the best way to retain the change? I can ask him to login and edit it himself, but then people could also claim that there is no proof that it was truly himself, without a cited source. In fact, as you can see in the edit history, he tried to change it himself at 09:30, 5 January 2012, by logging on himself‎ ("Douglas Hatlelid") when I first told him of "Walter" in his name. However, as the edit history shows, even his own edit was undone by someone else later (20:37, 5 January 2012‎ by 86.145.42.179).

Chip and I would actually be happy to find out the source of "Walter" in his name if anyone can supply the information, as we have been wondering where it came from in the first place. In the meantime, neither versions of his name has a source that can be cited online.

Do you have any suggestions? Chip and I will greatly appreciate it. NessH (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed 1 of 5 references claiming that there is no proof of its contents being used within this page. With that being said, are you able to proof that the other 4 references do have it's contents being used within the page? Why remove 1 reference and not all of them. Completely unjustified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsgeek540 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I made the edit to delete the one reference, that reference had just been added the previous day; however, there were no edits performed to add or change information around the time the reference was added, so it is clear it was not actually used as a reference. I believe the other references have been there a long time and information was added to the article at the time the references were added. But I see that subsequent to your comment on my talk page, there has been an edit war going on over this, which I have no desire to be a part of. --hulmem (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Reston Town Center (WMATA station) Seongsu Bridge Celebrate Fairfax! Rich Ross Feather Falls, California Juanita Banana (song) Herndon (WMATA station) Air Zoom Vomero The Road Is No Place for a Lady Surf City (song) Wiehle – Reston East (WMATA station) Chi Mai Cool, Cool Water Play Don't Worry Let the Sunshine In (album) Miami Pop Festival West Falls Church (WMATA station) Innovation Center (WMATA station) Dulles Technology Corridor

Cleanup Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce Capitol Records Color calibration Merge Service level Web development WS-CDL Add Sources PenTile matrix family Fairfax County, Virginia List of Christmas hit singles in the United States Wikify GINA : Global Information Network Architecture Chip Deffaa Software quality Expand Dennis Provisor Ages of consent in North America Sounds of Summer: The Very Best of The Beach Boys

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings- First, I assume good faith here- this isn't personal. The biography for Laura Nyro was admittedly one of the best of the articles where I've moved refs. The removal of sources generally improve the view of the article. I don't know how long you have been editing, and often the WP "rules" change. I work a lot doing cleanup and tasks outside that benefit the Wikipedia. Often people use "External links" as a parking lot for items they bump into but don't have the time or the drive to add them to the article. My relocation of those sources to the talk page as with CAT:ELC still makes them available for use! They didn't go anywhere! Often though, there are "sources" that violate Wikipedia standards, including fan sites, blogs, and items like two of those "references", that are copyright violations of performances on You Tube that jeopardize our Wikipedia and need weeding out. Off the top of my head, that's one of the rules I recall. Who knows if I'm 100% up on regs. here, but I hope you'll see why only moving those sources to the talk page presents a cleaner article, and increased ease of noticing unusable sources when they aren't hidden in the foliage of External links. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since I began this conversation on your talk page I replied there. You said you don't know how long I have been editing; I've been editing since January 2006. --hulmem (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking about refreshing my memory (and learning a LOT more) beginning here, and am hoping you might join me and many others:

Please accept this invite to join the Unreferenced articles WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to decreasing the number of unreferenced articles on Wikipedia. As of November, 2024 there are approximately 77,000 unreferenced articles on Wikipedia, we need your help! Simply click here and sign your username to accept! Thanks!  ~~~~

This is a good thing! Even if you already are doing this kind of work, it is a good way to raise awareness. Do join us! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the invitation, I will certainly consider it. I agree the biggest problem with WP is unreferenced content. --hulmem (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my edit of Up, Up and Away by The 5th Dimension, I edited the name of the song from "Up, Up and Away" to "Up-Up and Away". What I edited it to is the correct spelling of the track "Up-Up and Away" on the album, even though the album is spelled "Up, Up and Away". This is also a different spelling from the page it links it to. The 5th Dimension decided to use this new spelling even though the song is the same. You can see the track listing on the actual album at this page. Click on the album for a larger and easier to read version. So my edit was correct, even though it was a very minor one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.250.50 (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation; it is a puzzling discrepancy without an apparent reason. Regarding your comment, "The 5th Dimension decided to use this new spelling...", we don't know who made the decision to use the different punctuation (or why). It could have just been some editor who thought it looked "more correct" with a dash. I see this kind of small edit frequently as vandalism, so that is why I reverted it. In the future, there are two things you could do to reduce the possibility of your edit being suspected as vandalism and reverted: (1) Cite a reliable source that verifies the factual accuracy of your edit; and (2) write an edit summary for your edits. --hulmem (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

the only reason I changed the one word "odourless" from "odorless" was because it sat *directly* next to the word "colourless" (and not "colorless"). I wasn't trying to be controversial. Since the topic falls into the "international" topic category, I really don't see how one spelling is more appropriate than the other given that both versions were originally sitting side by side. But enforce the way you must.

--OettingerCroat (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. The hoax was started by an American, and I believe all the other British/American English spelling variants in the article use the American English spelling; had I noticed "colourless" when I reverted your edit I would have changed that as well (which I later did). By reverting your edit I was simply attempting to apply the guidelines for WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:TIES. --hulmem (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hulmem,

I am trying to add images for various Virginia articles. I see you removed the image I found for Herndon, as it was actually outside the town limits - thank you for catching that. What do you think about about this photo? It doesn't specify the location, so I'm hoping your local knowledge will help identify it.--Kubigula (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, adding images to articles a good thing to do. The Flickr photo is definitely within the town limits. It was taken from this vantage point (Bing Streetside image) looking almost directly south. If you look closely at the Bing Streetside image you can see the three historical markers that are in the photo foreground. The prominent brick building in the photo is the Herndon Town Hall. --hulmem (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great - thanks for the assists--Kubigula (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Springfield, West Virginia used to be part of Virginia, it was at the time called "Springfield, Virginia", see Former counties, cities, and towns of Virginia#West Virginia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a part of Virginia until 1863 — 150 years ago — along with every other city, town, and county in what is now West Virginia. According to WP:DABLINK, "Users searching for what turns out to be an ambiguous term may not reach the article they expected. Therefore any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Wikipedia articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article using one or more of the templates shown below." However, in my view Springfield, Virginia is not an ambiguous title. What is now Springfield, West Virginia, has been so for 150 years, so it is very improbable that someone looking for the article on Springfield, West Virginia, is going to enter the term Springfield, Virginia. -- hulmem (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not every city, town, and county, just the ones that were around at the time. You're forgetting about old documents, as an example. Someone could easily look at an old book or something (there are plenty of old public domain e-books on the Internet, for example), and if it says something about "Springfield, Virginia", he might not know that Springfield is now in West Virginia, he's going to look up "Springfield, Virginia". Of course in the overwhelming majority of cases someone who looks up "Springfield, Virginia", will be looking for the current one, but in the overwhelming majority of cases someone who looks up "Arlington, Virginia" (redirect to Arlington County, Virginia) will be looking for the census-designated place/county, not the unincorporated community. In the overwhelming majority of cases, someone who looks up "Obama" will be looking for the President, not some other use. All these article's have hatnotes, and they exist because of the small minority of cases where a reader will be looking for the other use. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example. Someone reads a modern day document about say, Virginia v. John Brown. The document says that it took place in "Harpers Ferry, Virginia". It, most likely though some oversight or sloppiness, neglects to clearly state that it is now part of West Virginia. Another possibility is that the article does say so clearly, but he looks up "Harpers Ferry, Virginia" anyway, perhaps because (if it's a webpage) it's simply easier for him to highlight "Harpers Ferry, Virginia", right click, and click "search with Wikipedia" then it is to go to our website and manually look up "Harpers Ferry, West Virginia". That particular example wouldn't be an issue because the only Harpers Ferry, Virginia in the one in West Virginia, but you see my point. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how a true statement about the failure of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame to induct The Belmonts and a reference from Billboard Magazine about them constitutes "original research" . Willgee (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Willgee, thank you for your many edits to improve and expand Wikipedia. First of all, I don't think I would refer to the Belmonts not being inducted as a "failure", because that implies (as a fact) something should have happened that didn't. I can see how someone could have such an opinion (that it was a "failure"), and a rationale for that opinion. But the only relevant facts supported by the sources you cited are that (a) the Belmonts were not inducted and (b) they weren't happy about it (which is understandable and not surprising). Even if many people have that opinion I don't know that it really matters with respect to encyclopedic content.

Here are some specific instances of what appears to me to be original research, or perhaps opinion:

(1) How is this a "controversy"? There is nothing in the sources you cited that establishes this as a controversy.

(2) The following text you added is not supported by the sources you cited: "Because of the timeline when these groups were successful, it was believed that The Belmonts would be included in this induction..." Who believed the Belmonts would be included, and why should their opinion matter?

(3) The following text you added is not supported by the sources you cited: "Because of the fact that the Belmonts scored chart hits for an additional 3 years after Dion left the group, coupled with the fact that The entire group, including Dion, were inducted intact into the Vocal Group Hall of Fame in 2000, just one year after Dion's solo induction into the Rock Hall, made their omission even more puzzling." A conclusion that this is puzzling is an opinion, even if it has a fact-based rationale; it is really a matter for the reader to decide.

--hulmem (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Goldmine, the Oldies Music magazine, dated 4/28 2012:

(Written on the occasion of the six classic groups into the Rock Hall...years after the separate inductions of their lead singers)

" The Rock Hall still has other wrongs to right E-Street Band, Silver Bullet Band, Wailers, Belmonts all deserve recognition

By adding the above members to the HOF, Rock Hall officials obviously re making an effort to fix earlier errors. At first glance, it appeared the HOF was concentrating on early period errors first, and, perhaps, would get around to consider later omissions — Bruce Springsteen’s E-Street Band, Bob Seger’s Silver Bullet Band, Bob Marley’s Wailers — later on. But one glaring remaining omission from this era of artists throws that theory out of whack: What happened to Dion’s group, The Belmonts?

For a two-year period in the early 1960s, Dion And The Belmonts were unstoppable, and The Belmonts played a major vocal role in almost all of the hits, beginning with the classic “I Wonder Why.” Monster recordings of “A Teenager In Love” and the two-sided smash “Where Or When” and “That’s My Desire” are just the tip of The Belmonts’ accomplishments. While Dion went on to have a Hall of Fame career as a solo artist, the Belmonts also did OK, scoring hits with “Tell Me Why” and “Come On Little Angel” as well as charting with several other singles.

Many variations of The Belmonts continue to this day, with occasional reunions with Dion, but the original group, which consisted of Fred Milano, Angelo D’Aleo and Carlo Mastrangelo with Dion, should be inducted."

http://www.goldminemag.com/article/rock-hall-strives-to-right-past-wrongs-with-extra-inductions Here's more:

THE BELMONTS "I think that inducting Dion as a solo artist was the right way to go, but they can’t discard his era with The Belmonts and the other musicians who played a part in it. In the same way that the six backing bands were supplementally inducted in 2012, The Belmonts absolutely need to be given that same honor. In fact, I’m shocked they weren’t included on the list. They were one of doo wop’s most important acts."

http://hiddenunderheadphones.com/2013/11/06/the-most-inexcusable-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-snubs-the-2013-update/

Here's still another...from The New York Daily News, dated February 9, 2012:

"In a quiet move that will draw some applause and likely raise a few further questions, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame announced Thursday it will induct the backup groups for six previous solo inductees.

The six groups include the Famous Flames, who backed 1986 inductee James Brown; the Crickets, who backed 1986 inductee Buddy Holly; the Comets, who backed 1987 inductee Bill Haley; the Miracles, who backed 1987 inductee Smokey Robinson; the Midnighters, who backed 1990 inductee Hank Ballard; and the Blue Caps, who backed 1998 inductee Gene Vincent.

They will be inducted at the Hall's annual dinner, which this year is April 14 in Cleveland.

Fans of those artists have long wondered why the Midnighters, Comets and Miracles, in particular, were passed over the first time around.

This makeup move is likely to trigger conversation about several other artists whose fans regard their backup groups as an integral part of their sound.

New Yorkers are likely to wonder why the Hall didn't take this opportunity to have the Belmonts join Dion, who was inducted solo in 1989."

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/rock-roll-hall-fame-inducts-backup-groups-crickets-famous-flames-comets-blue-caps-article-1.1019868

With all of these references , do you still think that I was stating "personal opinions", "grandstanding", and that there was "no controversy" concerning The Belmonts' omission?

All of these articles appeared during 2012 ,during the time frame of the inductions of The Miracles, The Famous Flames,The Midnighters , The Blue Caps, The Comets, and The Crickets. The writers of these articles all pointed out that the inductions of these groups triggered questions as to why The Belmonts were not included in the mass induction of these 6 "classic groups" during this timeline...which was exactly what I pointed out in my edit that you omitted.

Willgee (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Teamwork Barnstar

Thanks for checking out my addition of Chicago (band)#Graphics. That was a ton of hard work for me. I would appreciate feedback on that or any other articles. I wrote Walfredo Reyes, Jr. and Tris Imboden, which are still major works in progress. I would appreciate any Chicago-related collaboration! I did not understand his intentions to be that he had designed the first logo for any band in history. It seems that's how you read it, but it seems ambiguously nonspecific to me. I thought he meant that he had designed the first logo for this particular band, or at least for this name, since it had just renamed from CTA. What do you think about that? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You posted that I added info to Lou's wiki page and that you removed it...could you kindly tell me exactly what you removed? You said it needed a reliable source.. I am a reliable source because I was the original backup singer on all Lou's MGM hits.. So if you would be so knid as to tell me what you removed...Thanks

Denise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.1.230 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denise, first let me say I always thought the backup vocals were awesome on "Lightnin' Strikes" and other Lou Christie songs of the era! So I'm kind of honored to be corresponding with you.

I looked back at what I changed, and there was a sentence that said, "The song [Lightnin' Strikes] featured his signature falsetto and included a female chorus (Bernadette Carroll, Denise Ferri, and Peggy Santiglia, though Fred Bronson's listing stated Linda Scott and Ellie Greenwich instead..." and had a cited reference, the book The Billboard Book of Number One Hits. Your edit removed "though Fred Bronson's listing stated Linda Scott and Ellie Greenwich instead". I restored that text you deleted, assuming at the time that it was supported by the cited reference.

After I saw your note above, I decided to double check the reference, and discovered that the statement "though Fred Bronson's listing stated Linda Scott and Ellie Greenwich" was about the song "I'm Gonna Make You Mine", not "Lightnin' Strikes". So whoever originally put that phrase in was mistaken, and I was mistaken in restoring it after you deleted it. I just edited the article to delete that phrase, just as you had done.

On the subject of "reliable source", you might want to read these articles: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. While I'm sure you really are Denise Ferri, and have firsthand knowledge from your work as a singer, unfortunately there are many people who pretend to be someone else and make up stuff in Wikipedia. So when someone (in good faith) states "I was there, this is what happened", Wikipedia considers that to be "original research", which is not permitted; and instead requires a reliable published source that can be verified by anyone. I can see how this would be frustrating for you. So if you had written a book about your career that was published, or been interviewed in a magazine article, then the book or magazine article could be a reliable reference that is cited in this Wikipedia article. Perhaps there are books, magazine articles, or other reliable published sources you know of that can support some of the things you know from your own experience. I'd encourage you to continue editing Wikipedia to add information and correct errors on topics you know about, keeping in mind that you should cite a reliable source or someone might revert your edit. --hulmem (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hulmem,

you has been readded a weblink to www.unnumber.net to the artice UN number. This link is still or right now not usable. Pleas see the fatal error messages:

Warning: mysql_num_rows(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /storage/content/86/189186/unnumber.net/public_html/index.php on line 892

If you are the owner of the page, please repair as soon as possible. Else we should take the link out. Tilo.Ulb (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I thought you deleted the link because the website was inaccessible, when in fact it is accessible but UN number searches are non-functional with the error you indicated. I am not the owner of the site. I see that the site is copyrighted by "Eversoft", who seems to have given up their Internet domain. So I suspect the site is no longer being supported and I concur with removing the link. --hulmem (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! :-) Have a great day Hulmem! Tilo.Ulb (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added "Harassment, distress and alarm" to the "Contempt of Cop" See Also because it's synonymous with Section 5 of the Public Order Act in the UK, an act interpreted by many British police officers to mean that causing an officer to feel insulted or alarmed is a criminal offence. They are effectively the words used in the UK to signify Contempt of Cop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom.Mort (talk • contribs) 15:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Manluvspenguin (talk) Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Manluvspenguin (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A group of notables was listed as having attended or graduated from Yorktown High School. There was no corroborating citation after many months, so I rm them per WP:NLIST. Actually, they can be rm immediately. I just like to allow other editors time to validate their entries. Nor did they even suggest a class they graduated with, instead substituting birth date, as if that had anything to do with the school! A graduating class is needed, again for credibility. Pupils claim all sorts of notable figures. If you disagree with WP:NLIST please argue it out on that discussion page with other editors interested in preserving the credibility of Wikipedia. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I alluded to in the edit summary, the issue was not that you removed list entries or why you removed list entries; it was that you appeared to arbitrarily remove some entries and leave others, even though at the time none of the list items (including those you left) had citations. I guess I could have removed the entries you left, instead of restoring the entries you deleted. Since your first edit, I added citations to some of the entries. Inexplicably, I see that you have now removed the entries with citations and left others with no citations. What is your rationale? I will restore the entries with citations and delete those without citations per WP:NLIST. --hulmem (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that error on Bee Gees - I don't know how I managed to revert my correct edit to the incorrect. I'm blaming a new tablet that has a mind of its own and must have clicked on Undo when I wasn't looking. Cheers!Tvoz/talk 19:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've had the same thing happen to me, although I don't have a new tablet to blame. I think there has been some confusion if you look at the Englebert Humperdinck (note the incorrect spelling) redirect page and Humperdinck DAB page revision histories. --hulmem (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also played in 1987 movie "Timestalkers" before he died. He is not credited with this on his Wikipedia page. Hope this helps. Cheers!

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0875861/?ref_=tt_cl_t4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.28.37 (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Webb's LEGAL name is JIMMY, his brother's legal name is TOMMY, they were named after the Dorsey Brothers. This is common knowledge.

Also, "Instant Intimacy" was done as a staged reading with the Tennessee Repertory Theatre in June of 1996, Jimmy had written some of the songs in previous years, but the book writer, Robin Siegel, had not even started on the musical until the mid-nineties, for which she won an NEA Grant for "New American Musical." Best regards.Twigprod (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment "Jimmy Webb's LEGAL name is JIMMY, his brother's legal name is TOMMY, they were named after the Dorsey Brothers. This is common knowledge": Wikipedia content is not based on an editor's view of "common knowledge"; it is based on citing reliable sources. There is already a reliable source that says his name is "James". You will need to find and cite a reliable source that says his legal name is "Jimmy" for your edit to stand. --hulmem (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for toning down my recent edit to PDP-11 by attributing an opinion to specific people, as recommended by WP:weasel. ([1])

I wish other editors made such gentle edits more often. --DavidCary (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the issue is. Both battles have a wiki page, one of them referring to 'the village of Fairfax Court House'. Valetude (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then all you need to do is name the battles and add wikilinks that link to the two wiki articles. I would do it but the text you added gives no information on the names of the battles or the associated articles. Thanks! --hulmem (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, Hulmem. The two pages are 'Battle of Fairfax Court House (June 1861)' and 'Battle of Fairfax Court House (June 1863)'. Unfortunately I'm not too wikilinks-savvy, so if you were able to do the edit, I'd be very grateful. Also, you might agree that each of these two pages ought to have a 'see also', linking to the other - if not actually a re-naming of the pages (First Battle..., Second Battle...). Again, if you felt this was appropriate, you might feel like editing accordingly. Thanks again. Valetude (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the article information on the two battles. I think they're an important part of the City's history. Take a look at Help:Link#Wikilinks for a quick summary of creating links. --hulmem (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, I wasn't happy that you removed the link to our case study. The piece was completely legitimate and is not WPLINKSPAM in any way. Alot of hard work went into that piece and it did not contain any advertising information whatsoever. Please keep in mind that this is not LinkedIn or another privately owned content domain. Wikipedia is a free and open platform for contributions from multiple domains. Please respect our right to contribute. I have replaced the link and ask that you do not remove it again. If you have an issue with the content, please check with me first prior to arbitrarily removing it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omniscient21 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a number of misconceptions about Wikipedia. Please carefully read the guidance at WP:LINKSPAM (as I stated in my edit summary) and WP:NOTPROMOTION. While I would grant that the piece you linked is legitimate and does not itself contain any advertising, it appears that the purpose of including the link is to direct people to the Discern Technology commercial website with the ultimate goal of getting more customers, since developing and implementing service oriented architectures for existing applications is one of the services provided by Discern Technology. Such promotion is against Wikipedia policy and is considered to be linkspam. While Wikipedia is a free and open platform, permitted and prohibited content is governed by many Wikipedia policies, including the two I linked above. I certainly respect your right to contribute, just as I'm sure you respect my right to revert an edit that I've determined to be against Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, I do not need to check with you or anyone to edit Wikipedia content, including reverting edits, when my edits conform to Wikipedia policy or remove content that is against Wikipedia policy. Finally, as I've explained, I didn't "arbitrarily" remove the link; my rationale was provided in my original edit summary, linked to the applicable Wikipedia policy, and expanded on above. I can understand that you are not happy I removed the link because I'm sure you worked hard on the case study, and I hope you find venues other than Wikipedia for publicizing the case study and the related products and services offered by Discern Technology. --hulmem (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also meant to add that whenever there is disagreement among editors about the content of an article (such as whether or not edited content meets Wikipedia policy), the article's talk page is a good place for an open discussion to bring in the views of other editors. --hulmem (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i am honestly not looking for an argument, but does such a policy of "logical quotations" (your mention of Wikipedia policy) serve the readability of quoted items in text for English readers? I can certainly find better ways to use my time. What I find problematic are a) unreadable portions of text, more so than b) which rules are followed to the letter. Not accusing you of anything. I appreciate you taking time to mention this directly to me instead of undoing edits with no explanation, as it seems others may have done. My objectives in "fixing" punctuation were purely altruistic toward improving readability. If the rules differ from conventional English, maybe they need fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6981:C300:951:C8BA:9F87:A830 (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you actually read the policy and took it to heart. Most Wikipedia policies are established by the consensus of Wikipedia editors (although in this case I was not one of them). I imagine there is reasonable disagreement over whether including punctuation inside quotes used to denote literal text improves the readability of quoted items for English readers. It may also be that the logical quoting goal of reducing ambiguity outweighs any improvements in readability. Although most Wikipedia policies make sense, there are some I question as well. However, your personal preference or even the recommendations of many style guides are not valid rationales for disregarding the policy. I recommend you follow the policy even if you don't agree with it. Otherwise, editors will likely follow behind you and revert your edits to conform with Wikipedia policy, which is non-productive for you and the editors doing the reverting. I see you've made many good "quality control" edits and I hope you can put this issue aside and continue improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, including conformance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --hulmem (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have been contracted for the Cannery Concerts, subbing for John for the band by Lon Bronson. These have been high profile concerts. I have proof io the contracts and recordings as well as photos. As they had only the page "Members" I posted there. I hope that this was not incorrect. If need be I could get Clarence to help me. He is an original member. My intent is to be truthful and set records straight. My website, that has to be updated is garyoldsmusic.com. Thanks Gary Olds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsart (talk • contribs) 21:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re your undo of my addition of {{1992 shipwrecks}} to the USS Saratoga article - Saratoga was in collision with TCG Muavenet on 2 October 1992, as detailed in the article. Muavenet was a total loss, which is why she is in the "shipwrecks" section, whereas Saratoga was not, which is why she is in the "other incidents" section. Please reinstate the template. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Bunnell

Lee Merton Bunnell is the birth name as per Mr. Bunnell's passport. The photo referenced for "Martin" is erroneous.

http://www.venturahighway.com/db001.jpg

Doctordawg (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, when you make a change to a fact that differs from its cited source, and you have a source that confirms your fact change is true, then you must replace the original citation with a citation for your new source. See WP:CITE for information on how to cite sources. Thanks. --hulmem (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I did give you a reliable source for the information I added on the Citizen Trundel episode. It came from Denise Nicholas personally. Also, I wrote MOST of the dialogue for the season synopsis' so please don't go deleting them.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.74.201.176 (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not appear to understand Wikipedia policy on verifiability, and have not taken the time to read an understand the links to these policies I have left on your talk page. You must cite a reliable, published source when editing Wikipedia. A statement by an anonymous user is not a reliable source, and you did not support your assertions with inline citations. Please read WP:VERIFIABILITY. It states:

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it...All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable...Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed...For how to write citations, see citing sources. Verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three.

Therefore I cannot honor your request and am reverting your edits once again. I sincerely hope you can find a reliable, published source for the information you believe to be true, and are able to add back in the text with an inline citation to a published source. --hulmem (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

There is a reliable source. The actress herself and an article from TV Guide in 1990 when the episode aired. If you would like to add those sources for me as I am not familiar with HTML that is fine. I will change things back. I am close friends with many of the shows cast. I do not understand why you are arguing with me over citation style...if that is the problem just fix that. The facts surrounding the information remain the same. I am probably one of the most knowledgable people out there when it comes to this show. As I said before, I wrote the season synopses which seem to have been cut down in length.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JClabaugh (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with you. I respect the work that you've done. I'm trying to help you understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but you need to make the effort to understand them. All content in Wikipedia must come from published sources (a newspaper, magazine, book, reliable Internet site [i.e., not a blog]), and the sources must be detailed in an in-line citation; that way it is verifiable. Readers can use your citation to look at the source and verify the facts you've added to Wikipedia. The fact that you are close friends with the show's cast and that you know these things to be true doesn't matter! I know that is hard to accept, but that's the way Wikipedia operates. Unfortunately, there are bad people who edit Wikipedia and make up all kinds of stuff about who they are and what they know. The requirement to cite reliable sources for verifiability helps protect the integrity of the information in Wikipedia. So it is not a matter of citation "style"; you've not put in any citations at all. Your statement that you know something to be true is not a citation. If you tell me the specific published sources of your information, I can help you create the citations. It's not as hard as it may seem and does not require knowledge of HTML.

One other thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a collection of feature stories. The text you write must be both factual and notable. So the fact that "an episode was of special significance to series co-star Denise Nicholas" may be interesting to some from a human interest perspective, but this is not a human interest story; it is an encyclopedia article about the TV show. So in my view that whole text is not relevant to the article and should be left out.

Please take my comments to heart - they are sincerely meant to help you contribute to Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia policies. However, if you continue to disregard my advice and add content that conflicts with these policies, you may find yourself temporarily banned from editing Wikipedia. --hulmem (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you don't revert without checking. I have checked a number of the sources, and they all used the same quote here, here, here, including the liner note in the citation here. Hzh (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wth are you doing reversing the 2014 tour information? Where you there?

I certainly was and watched their concert. If you don't have any insight then stop reversing information you have no insight on! [unsigned comment by Db54 (talk)]

"I was there" means nothing on Wikipedia. That is considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. All content in Wikipedia must be verifiable by citations to published, reliable sources. --hulmem (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that is bull crap. do you know how many citations AREN"T in WIKI! Stop being a troll and leave information you have no clue about alone! It would have been easier for you to grab a citation from their website if that is what was keeping you up at night. [unsigned comment by Db54 (talk)]

I've made a good faith attempt to help you understand one of the fundamental five pillars of Wikipedia. If you ignore these five pillars, you can expected your edits to be reverted by editors who accept the five pillars. There is no need for further discussion. --hulmem (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for you:

Are you a fan of classic R&B ? Are you familiar with the artists or their histories ? If not ( and , correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you are)... Why have you taken it upon yourself to micro-manage and attempt to DELETE almost EVERY ENTRY that I place into Wikipedia ? Do you post ANY entries YOURSELF ? OR DO YOU JUST GO AROUND DELETING EVERYONE ELSE'S ? In looking at your talk page , apparently others have the same complaints about you as I do. I make every attempt to BACK UP my entries with verifiable sources. This is not the first time that you have deleted my entries. It's happened several times. I'd just like to know why .I'm sure that others would like to know just why you do it to them TOO. I've been invited to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. I don't think that would have happened if I didn't know just what I was talking about. Do you ? You did the SAME thing when I proved to you that there WAS indeed a controversy regarding The Belmonts' omission from The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. As far as I can see , you don't check for truth. You just DELETE. Why ??

Willgee (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., commas go inside quotation marks.

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/how-to-use-quotation-marks

The Beach Boys are an American band. These commas should remain inside the quotation marks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beach_Boys_in_Concert&oldid=prev&diff=679675694

Thank you.

Bruce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brhodewalt (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a US v. British English issue. It is a Wikipedia style issue regardless of the article's variety of English. Wikipedia always uses logical quoting. Please see WP:LQ. Also, when commenting in a talk page, it is good practice to sign your comment; see WP:SIG. --hulmem (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two very good points. Thank you.

Bruce

You changed my update on the Family Guy page, regarding Meg Griffin's real name. However, Megatron is actually her real name. It was placed on her birth certificate by Peter, her father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.191.199 (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this talk discussion Talk:Meg_Griffin#Megan_vs_Megatron - hulmem (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike - I am glad to know you, and will certainly need the help in the future. Jets.hunt (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mike. Hi. I noticed your editor work at James Carville article and decided to ask for your help on editing The National Memo article. Carville is a frequent contributor to The National Memo, so I assume that you know this media (and the liberal press) quite well. The article has been undergoing dramatic edits and I ask for your assistance in editing/improving this article.

I while ago I was asked to make several minor edits to the article as paid editor. At that time the article had minimal content and was no more than a stub. I’ve added some information following the structure of such articles as Salon (website), HuffPost, Politico adding infobox, improving categories and adding some well-referenced info. The article started to look like a normal website/media article. After that it got heavily edited in two waves by editors deleting large chunks of well-written (ok, my personal view :)) and well-referenced information. I believe that some of these edits/deletions are extraneous and actually make the article worse/less useful to Wikipedia users. I also believe that The National Memo article has an undisputable notability. There is an interesting discussion about this at the article’s Talk page.

A lot of what is going all around this article is plain nonsense. So if you are interested in the subject / in improving the article, please take a look at January 10th version or January 29th version. Also if you have any suggestions on improving the article, please share. Thank you in advance. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_brroP2yrHaCFltP&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done --hulmem (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly of African descent, not English. All that is needed to see this is a photograph. England isn't an independent nation so citizenship for England isn't even a thing, thus it is inaccurate even if used in that context. Being born on a piece of land doesn't change your ethnicity, as I'm sure all the white people in the Americas can attest to.

See WP:Manual of Style/Biography#Context. It's not the person's ethnicity; it's "the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". --hulmem (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged my revision of The Time Tunnel as vandalism? That is a petty action. SpencerCollins (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are mistaken. I did not tag your revision as vandalism, becasue it was not vandalism. I merely reverted your edit with an edit summary explaining why; there was no mention of vandalism. Perhaps you are looking at some other edit? --hulmem (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am just going by what I read on this page...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Time_Tunnel&oldid=prev&diff=854837254 SpencerCollins (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, there's nothing in there about vandalism. I'm sorry you interpreted it that way because there was no belief or intent to indicate vandalism. I simply reverted your edit as I thought deleting the word "space" made the phrase potentially ambiguous becasue "alien" alone could be interpreted with different meanings. Let me know if you disagree. But it's only one word, so not a big deal. --hulmem (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike,

I apologize for not following official Wikipedia protocol in my two attempts to correct the date my father, Bob Hubbard, was drafted into the Army and left the Jordanaires (April 1952). Apparently my interview with him does not meet the requirements of verifiable reliable source. I have read all the Wikipedia subject matter on citations and making changes to text on Wikipedia webpages and am still not sure what is going to qualify.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me in layman's terms what might meet the test and how I, or possibly you, can make the change on The Jordanaires Wikipedia webpage. Here are a few possibly acceptable sources of information:

1. Go to The Jordanaires Wikipedia webpage and click on References 2 or 11 (they link to the same website), click on Biography and you will see that this source states that dad left the group in the early 1950s. 2. Click on External Link "Bob Hubbard Interview". During this interview on KWTO-TV in Springfield, MO dad states that he left the group in 1952. 3. Go to website www.jordanaires.net, the official website of the Jordanaires, maintained by Ray Walker, former member of the Jordanaires. Click on Member History and you will see that my dad was in the group from 1948-1952.

There is at least one other incorrect statement on the webpage.

The webpage states "The history of the Jordanaires can be traced back to the early 1940s, and the original Foggy River Boys, which were {sic} made up of the Matthews brothers...)". That is incorrect. The original Foggy River Boys quartet was not made up of the four Matthews brothers and the Foggy River Boys did not predate The Jordanaires. The name The Foggy River Boys was given to the group comprising Bill Matthews, Monty Matthews, Bob Hubbard and Cully Holt in 1950, two years after the formation of The Jordanaires, by Paul Cohen, A&R man for Decca Records, Inc., so that Decca could record and release "Rag Mop", a secular song, and Decca would not have to reveal the group's identity as The Jordanaires. This was apparently done for a contractual reason as Decca had signed The Jordanaires to record gospel and spiritual songs for them.

My dad provided the corrected information above. I have no idea where to find a reliable source for this information that meets Wikipedia requirements so I suppose the current information on the website will have to remain as disinformation.

Thanks for your help. Regards, Tom Hubbard 75.121.29.246 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, no need to apologize here because we are all still learning as contributors. Let's figure out how we can work on this together to make the article as accurate as possible. Give me a day to look at what you've written above and I'll come up with some suggestions. One of the thigs we can do is that if there is an existing claim in the article that it is false, and does not have a cited reliable source, we can simply remove that text. --hulmem (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, Sounds great. Thanks so much for your help. Also, my 90 year old father, Bob Hubbard, is available by phone or email to confirm the information I have written. Regards, Tom75.121.29.246 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Mike, Another thing you might want to consider is information on the Wikipedia page for the Foggy River Boys, the original membership of which included my dad. It reads " In 1952, Hoyt Hawkins replaced Hubbard and Neal Matthews, Jr. (no relation) replaced Monty Matthews, forming the version of the Jordanaires who went on to back Elvis Presley." This is the correct information for the date of dad leaving the Foggy River Boys and The Jordanaires, the membership of each being the same at that time. Regards, Tom Hubbard 75.121.29.246 (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, Have you had time to consider how best to correct the wrong date that my dad was drafted? Thanks, Tom Hubbard 75.121.29.246 (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake! Troy von Tempest (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Hulmem. Your recent edit to the page God Only Knows appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. hulmem (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hulmem. Your above message refers to an edit in which I corrected the spelling Valentin to Balantin. The main reason for the correction is my familiarity with the work of sound engineer Ralph Balantin and my knowledge of the fact that he was responsible for engineering the vocal recordings of the Pet Sounds album. Nevertheless, I hope you may consider the following as reliable sources:

a) The paragraph above my edit contains this text "with the session engineered by Ralph Balantin and produced by Brian". Ihis sentence includes the correct spelling of the name.
b) This AllMusic.com article lists some of Mr Balantin's engineering credits, including the Pet Sounds album which concerns us here: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/ralph-balantin-mn0001361449
c) This DiscoGS.com discography contains some of Mr Balantin's technical credits, including the Pet Sounds album: https://www.discogs.com/artist/807309-Ralph-Balantin
d) The AlbumLinerNotes.com page for the Pet Sounds album cites Mr Balantin as the engineer: http://albumlinernotes.com/Pet_Sounds_Session_List.html

I'm confident an Internet search for the terms "Ralph Balantin Pet Sounds" will provide these and many other results that will easily confirm the validity of my correction.

Now I've satisfied your request for sources I would like to bring up the issue of your statement "Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information". As has been clearly proven in this reply the change I made to the article was not only factual but also warranted, as the prior information (which you have reinstated) was erroneus. You would have discovered this yourself if you had bothered to read not even the whole article but just the edited section, where you would have come across the correct spelling of the engineer's name as mentioned in my earlier point a). You would also have noted my edit was correct with a simple web search. But despite not making even the slightest effort to check the correctness of my edit you felt it was appropriate to write to tell me I was wrong. I wonder if you're always such a colossal cunt or if I've been specially singled out for the "Hulmem is an asshole" treatment. Please let me know.

In May 1972, he appeared nude on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine in a cropped Annie Leibovitz photo. He used the article to get away from his squeaky clean image. Among other things, the article mentions Cassidy was riding around New York in the back of a car "stoned and drunk."

I think that refutes the greater part of your objection. I feel I added quite substantial data (as requested in the tag), and that the remaining issues could have been edited-out without a rv. Valetude (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Valetude, I appreciate that you were trying to add information as requested by the tag. The reason for my revert was that you didn't cite sources for the claims you made. Perhaps you can add a citation to the Rolling Stone article you mention. The claim "he [Cassidy] used the article to get away from his squeaky clean image" seems like original research on your part. Perhaps you can find an actual quote from the Rolling Stone article that substantiates that claim. The statement "Among other things, the article mentions Cassidy was riding around New York in the back of a car 'stoned and drunk'" describes a particular event, and is not a rationale for a claim that Cassidy "became a lifelong alcoholic". --hulmem (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no original research in my editing. The statement came straight from the Partridge Family article, complete with cites, including the relevant piece from Rolling Stone. It was only the reference to Cassidy’s lifelong alcoholism that came from his own wiki article, rather than the Partridge Family one. Valetude (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hulmem, thanks for your message about my change to the content on the Julius Wechter page, and the need to provide a reliable source. I read the article, and then I read the single source cited for the article, which is the L.A. Times obit. The obit says the Baja Marimba Band was formed in 1964. The article said it was formed in 1962. I changed "1962" to "1964." I considered that, because the entire article appears to be based on the single reference, namely, the L.A. Times obit, that no further citation was necessary. Johnwellsking (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Johnwellsking[reply]

Good catch. I just assumed the article about the band itself would be more authoritative, but it also only has a single source, AllMusic, which has no claim about when they were formed. Doing a quick Internet search, I wasn't able to find a reliable source (other than the obit you referenced) for the date the band was formed. I see their first album (self-titled) was released in 1964. However, I see that Discogs lists the single "Comin' In The Back Door" as being released in 1963. So perhaps further research is warranted but it may be impossible to authoritatively establish. In any event, the Julius Wechter and Baja Marimba Band articles should be consistent with each other. How about if we use the Circa template and put in {{Circa|1963}}? —hulmem (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. 45cat.com lists a Nov 1963 release date for the single. http://www.45cat.com/record/201us7. Thanks. (I note The Washington Post obit also cites 1964 as the date Herb Alpert suggested Wechter form the Baja Marimba Band. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1999/02/07/composer-julius-wechter-dies-at-63/967fb099-5c58-41ba-b47b-a5c1aa5984ad/?utm_term=.cd2538a7ce99.) Johnwellsking (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)John Wells King[reply]

Thank You for pointing out the needed citation. Re-added.108.36.82.199 (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks! —hulmem (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed the questionable change as well. Which is why I reverted it the first time. But I decided not to revert a third time, as I felt that it would start an edit war if I did. Any idea if any of their other edits may be misguided? If you understand what I'm asking, that is. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I breezed through their most recent edits going back about 50 or so edits, and many of them are case changes; however I did not see another one that I thought was an inappropriate edit. I think in the case of the Monkees, the editor misunderstands the scope of MOS:THEMUSIC as it applies to "the" mid-sentence, and doesn't realize the distinction between an occurrence of "the Monkees" as a band name vs. an occurrence in the title of a performance or work of art (such as a tour). —hulmem (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the co-writer for the song "Sadie" was re-corrected to Byron Hill. The incorrect co-writer (Bob Hilliard) was originally listed wrong by AllMusic, but Bob Hilliard was dead long before the song was written. AllMusic has been notified that the correct co-writers are: T. Michael Coleman and Byron Hill. Rounder Records (owner of Flying Fish Records) is aware of the problem as well.

This is why wiki has such a lousy reputation and can't recruit and keep large numbers of editors. You and this asylum run by the inmates aren't worth the time. Good riddance. Seven Pandas (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's too bad you feel that way about an edit consisting of a single letter. I'm not sure if you're upset because of the realization that your understanding of a grammar rule was incorrect (based on the authoritative source I cited in my edit summary), or if you just don't like your edits reverted. It seems you took the revert very personally, which I have found to be a common but unfortunate reaction. Perhaps you could consider Wikipedia to be a learning experience as well as a rewarding experience for making beneficial contributions. I don't like it when my edits are reverted either, but sometimes the other editor makes a good case and I accept that their edit is the most appropriate and I move on. I agree that being a Wikipedia editor can be disheartening sometimes, because many editors have unreasonable behavior; when this happens I take a break. I sincerely hope you come back, maybe after taking a break. --hulmem (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the confusion there; I intended a "restore to earlier version" and hit "rollback", so it looked like I was undoing only your edit. It's back to where it should be, now. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I would have understood from your edit summary and subsequent edit. But that was really nice of you to let me know. Initially I was going to just revert the edit as "unsourced", but I chickened out. I've had bad experiences reverting the edits of someone who has made thousands of edits yet still adds clearly unsourced material. --hulmem (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know if it's right or wrong remove all these links. I think you let only official websites and removed all unofficial resources about them. I don't think it's right because the link was related to them, so I don't agree with you and leaving only one or two official links. I don't agree, sorry. In Wikipedia there are official and unofficial links related to artists, producers, films, songs. I don't see why remove the unofficial links that represent a living source of information. Please restore these links from the Wikipedia pages of Pete Waterman and Mike Stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardelius (talk • contribs) 12:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go Away Little Girl began a two week stint at # 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart beginning January 12th 1963.You can look it up on Wikipedia.I am right and you are wrong Sir! I will change it everytime you dare to "correct" it because I am right and you are absolutely 10% WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMW1974 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, calm down a little. Firstly, this IS Wikipedia, and Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source (please see WP:WPNOTRS). Secondly, you changed a fact in a Wikipedia article without citing a reliable source (please see WP:UNSOURCED). This is difficult for many people to accept, but what you know to be true doesn't matter! You must cite a reliable source to verify your claim. So as you believe the 1963 date to be true, I would encourage you to find a reliable source for this date and cite it. – hulmem (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello I saw you deleted my post on the B727 article about Middle Tennesee State Univ. It is impossible to provide a source since the Information I gave is from an email I received. Please do not remove my corrections anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoutingrocks236 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but if it is impossible to cite a reliable, verifiable, published source for the content you added to the article, then the content can't be added to Wikipedia. Perhaps you did not click on the link to the Wikipedia reliable sources policy I posted on your talk page. I imagine this is difficult for you to accept, because you know your claim to be true; but Wikipedia content is not what people know to be true, it is what people can prove to be true by citing a reliable, verifiable, published source. Regretfully, should you restore your edit, I will likely revert it in conformance with Wikipedia policy. --hulmem (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about that edit now? Scoutingrocks236 (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hulmen. Thank you for your recent tweaks. I keep away from this as in the past I have been accused of COI -- so I can only stand back and watch. There is so much I could add that I think would benefit the entry , but as I have been told 'no self-promotion'. The main thing I would love to get across is this was long before Internet and Wiki -- I had to use my brain and my massive collection of music magazines. I look back and think 'how on earth did I even attempt this' -- but we did it without a thought -- 4,000 words a day for three years!!! Anyway thank you for making a tiny improvement. RegardsColin Larkin (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hulmen. There is so much on that page that is wrong (and also no citations for them). I worked for Sperry Univac between 1980 and 1986 (then with Unisys until 1993) so the errors and omissions are glaring although reliable online citations are sometimes hard to come by. Martynico (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martynico. I understand your position and it is certainly valid. Here are some things to consider:

• It would be great if you could find at least some references, if you have the time and willingness to do the research
• You can simply remove existing unsourced content you believe to be wrong, and put "unsourced" in the edit summary
• You can place a ^{[citation needed]} tag against unsourced text, even unsourced text you add, in the hope that someone else will find a citation
• You can comment on the article talk page about the incorrect unsourced content with the goal of encouraging other editors to help you make the article better

—hulmem (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hulmem!

I received your message that you changed an edit I made to Joe Thomas (producer) due to not including a source. On his page, it reads "Imagination was released on Thomas' Giant Records in June 1998." Thomas' should be removed because it is not his record company. If you go to the Giant Records page on Wikipedia, you'll see that it is owned by Irving Azoff. Can you please revert to the change that I made yesterday? Or, I can enter it again and list the Giant Records' Wiki page as the reference/source.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOrricoPR (talk • contribs) 14:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message about deleting my correction to the spelling of character Willson Sweet as it is not "verifiable". I certainly understand the site's need & desire to be accurate and have seen obvious abuse on it before. Riddle me this: Do you have a verifiable source that "Wilson" is the correct spelling? IMDB.com has many, many errors (and thus is not a reliable source) and has it spelled incorrectly as well.

I have twice used my DVR to freeze scenes where there is a clear closeup of Willson's badge on his uniform. It just seems a bit too rigid to be so inflexible with policy on such a inconsequential, minor matter.

I appreciate the voluntary work you folks do, but this has soured my willingness to take my time to contribute in the future. I'm not going to take time to find a "verifiable" source for such a minor correction. A simple google source produces numerous confirmations on the correct spelling, including interviews with the actor that plays the character.

Thanks for your time.

50.47.131.27 (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear this has soured your willingness to take the time to contribute in the future. Editing Wikipedia can be frustrating at times. One thing many people don't understand is that Wikipedia does not necessarily contain the "truth"; it contains content (which may or may not be the truth) that can be verified by citations to reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia in the links. You are correct that IMDB is not considered a reliable source. I tried to help by doing a quick Google search as you suggested. There are many sources (not necessarily reliable) that say the name is spelled "Wilson" and almost none that say the name is spelled "Willson". The only thing I could find was a publicity photo with "Willson" someone posted on Pinterest. Unfortunately, there is so much vandalism on Wikipedia where people introduce deliberate factual errors, sometimes very minor, that a citation is required for even something as trivial as the spelling of a character's name. As the editor adding or modifying content, you — not me or anyone else — is responsible for the citation. I don't have to verify that the existing spelling is correct, although it is unfortunate the article is very poorly sourced and there is currently no citation regarding the character's name. In the end it depends on how important it is to you for the article to be "correct". If it is important enough, you will search, find, and add a citation to a reliable source; otherwise, without a citation, your edit may be reverted and all you can do is let it go. —hulmem (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"If it is important enough, you will search, find, and add a citation to a reliable source; otherwise, without a citation, your edit may be reverted and all you can do is let it go"

No, it's not important enough for me to take valuable time to search for what you personally deem a "reliable source" to verify what I know absolutely to be true as seen by my own eyes (for such a minor change) and supported by images of his badge I've located, and I will indeed "let it go", in addition to my years long content contributions and financial support. I'm also saddened to see that Wiki now considers "content" to be more important than "correct content". A great experiment has now entered the phase of bureaucratic exclusion of public input on which it was built. Could this be the beginning of the decline? It's fast becoming a closed clique. Interesting that you claim the current incorrect spelling does not need to be verified, but my corrected version does.

I have a good friend who's a university professor at a major college here in the PNW. 6 or 7 years ago she told me that she allowed her students to use Wiki as one of their numerous citations in papers, so long as they checked the citation a week or two later to see that the info was still up on the page. She recently told them Wiki citations would no longer be allowed.

No need to reply, I'm done. What you're defending is the current "fact" that the most repeated misinformation is the new "truth".

Good Morning! I am writing in regards to music producer, Joe Thomas. His BIO includes inaccurate and false information. I saw that you were also editing the platform. Would you be able to help to get his correct BIO with true and factual information added to his WIKI page?

[copy of IMDB bio redacted]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:501:53F1:E46C:5FF6:88B4:A111 (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hulmem,

I don't believe I ever made an edit to that page. Could you tell me when the edit was made?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.204.170 (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to this edit. Since the edit was made with an IP address instead of a Wikipedia account, if you are using a public computer or your IP address is otherwise shared or reused, someone else could have made the edit. As suggested on the note I left on your talk page: If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices. —hulmem (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you in the discussion on the talk page about the map, it was changed recently without other input and I reverted the edit and posted my reasons for doing so. I just wanted to let you know. Dubyavee (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but I note the first three editable sections of the article only have one ref combined and that is to the South African National Defence Force. Are you going to be removing those contributions as well or at least adding "need cite"? Also not giving a good faith editor a chance to add refs before reverting seems a bit harsh unless the material is controversial or involves living persons. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I see your point about the many other unreferenced sections; I was just looking at your edits. I've added a "More citations needed" tag to the article and started a section on the talk page.

My experience is that most contributors add the references at the same time as the text, since that's what you're supposed to do (according to WP:V – "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."). I find that contributors of unreferenced content almost never go back and add references unless their contributions are reverted as unsourced or tagged. I frequently add the "Citation needed" tag or find and cite a reference to added or changed text rather than reverting if the changes are small. But you made so many additions and to multiple sections, and I lack the knowledge to efficiently find sources for this topic. If you add the text back in without references you are only making the lack of references problem worse. But you seem to be knowledgeable about the Salute topic, so I would think you would be able to easily find references. I'd encourage to to add in the reverted text with citations as they are likely valuable contributions to the article. —hulmem (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hulmem, I had put in a link to that film's page on Wikipedia. Why would a citation be needed? On your second point, is there a list for LASD being portrayed in fictional pop culture? If yes, I will add it to that. I didn't see one. For example there is a list for NYPD. Pareshbh (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hulmem, I see you reverted some edits on Idiocracy. In accordance with WP:BRD there's an opportunity to discuss on Talk:Idiocracy#Film_intro_in_the_plot?. Chumpih. (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am cathy's PA so the source is actually Cathy Dennis Please can we keep it up there? thanks

Hello, the edits from Windows Virtual PC don't have sources as no news articles has yet to report on it. The download links still worked on Saturday and had been removed on Sunday because I saw them, so I was the one who saw Microsoft remove the Download links. After all, Windows 7 is old and I'm not sure if anyone will report on it. Please read it.Angelgreat (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Can I query this reversion as the change was only to correct an ISO date format. If the reference is linkspam as per edit summary then you need to revert further. Keith D (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Keith D, I apologize for my mistake. Another editor had added the reference with the linkspam. Then you corrected the access date in that reference. Somehow I mistakenly rolled back your edit instead of the the reference with the linkspam. I have since reverted the reference with the linkspam. Again, my apologies. —hulmem (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for looking at it again. Keith D (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hulmen, There are various mentions on the internet of Carl Wilson's dog Shannon having been a Irish Setter and alternatively being a Samoyed. There are only 2 photos of Carl Wilson with a dog/dogs and he is with a Samoyed in both photos. Whoever has posted the photos refers to the dog in both pictures being 'Shannon'- of course, they could be mistaken. The Wikipedia page about the song "Shannon" if you read it carefully it says "Wilson said he had a Samoyed named Shannon". It was Henry Gross who had the Irish Setter. The reference for the Shannon Wikipedia page refer to Carl Wilson having an Irish Setter, so maybe whoever wrote the Wikipedia "Shannon" page made a mistake. I'ts confusing. I'm happy to leave Carl Wilson's Wikipedia page at him having an Irish Setter. I'm not interested in creating a Wikipedia account - I don't have the computer skills and I am too old ;) Here are some links - I hope this works - regards - Eileen Delaney (Kyabram, Australia)

https://www.facebook.com/DennisWilsonAndTheBeachBoys/photos/carl-wilson-and-his-dog-shannon/1372151859588724/

https://sunny713-blog.tumblr.com/post/40344850520/carliknow-carl-wilson-from-the-1977-love-you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.251.118 (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you would bother to read the whole Pure Prairie League article or even had the barest knowledge of Pure Prairie League, you would know that Larry Goshorn was a MEMBER of Pure Prairie League from 1973-1978! I even indicated this fact in my second edit! It boggles the mind how one can call something DISRUPTIVE editing without even knowing the subject they're speaking of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.255.201 (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]