User talk:The Almighty King

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

TheRingess 06:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Kelvin, yes, I reckon it looks better now - I don't have time to check out the links right now, but I notice that you've undone some of the corrections and wikilinks I made. I suppose you did it by mistake as part of the other changes you were making? --Technopat (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Kelvin, thanks for your thanks! It's starting to look much better, and people are getting involved, which is good. Indifference is a bad thing. By the way, next time you start an article, use the underconstruction template - put {{}} and write the word underconstruction inside. It'll stop people breathing down your neck. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Kelvin. No, I'm afraid the only correct word in this case is "honorific". As for the use of capital letters, again no. The Manual of Style is clear on that: Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Kelvin - the article is coming on nicely now, but I'd seriously recommend you put those crowns after the lede (and possibly a bit smaller format). The lede is far more important that any image and must be in a prominent position. I tried to do it myself just now and couldn't get it to work and don't have time to sort it out right now. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Kelvin - yep, I agree that it now looks very good. Still needs people to go through it with a fine-toothed comb, but I think it looks attractive enough to make people want to read it through, which makes it a good Wikipedia article. As you know, I don't think much of the actual content :) , but that's a different matter!

Just one last comment - now that you've done so much work on it, try to relax a bit, enjoy other articles and don't take any changes personally. The Wikicommunity is out here to keep an eye on it and to improve it if necessary. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you're having trouble formating the footnotes so that they show up in the References section at the bottom of the page? Nightscream (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Footnotes will tell all you need to know about how to do that. If you need any other help, let me know. Nightscream (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. Excellent work, btw. I did some copyediting on the article myself, just so you know. Nightscream (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kelvin. I've replied to your request on my talk page. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin, now that a lot of reference work has been done, you might want take this opportunity to become familiar with the {{cite web}} template. There are a few examples in the article already. Basically, you'll expand the URL that is between ref tags to include helpful information, such as the title of the page, the date that you accessed it (the day that you actually add the template), the publisher (Rock and roll Hall of Fame, that sort of thing). Let me know if you have any questions or qualms. --Elliskev 14:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you might be interested in helping me with an article I'm working on for the comic book website Project Fanboy

I've created the article here on my sandbox and was wondering if you'd be so kind as to give it a look and let me know what you think. (whether the site is notable enough for an article or not yet) All the best, Millennium Cowboy (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Honorific titles in popular music, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as this Article is going to be kept, I should point out Janet Jackson has been a consistent rival of Madonna for the title "Queen of Pop". See her main article under "1993–1996: janet. and Poetic Justice" and Ask Billboard under "The Diva Dance". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 13:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say this, since I closed the last AfD on this article; you do need to focus on the major premise of the article, and you do need to provide WPRS:reliable sources for the titles given to the artists mentioned. I have no admin opinion either way whether this article should survive; but personally, I don't see why a properly sourced article should not be worthy, after all it's not something that other encyclopedias are bothered with. Having said that, I have to say that losing the Notes section was a good idea, since its presence didn't amplify the theme of the article. I've said elsewhere that it should take about a week to make this article defensible, and I'll give you that leeway. --Rodhullandemu 00:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Kelvin, I'm not going to push you, but I seriously advise you to pay more attention to the articles talk page, regularly check it to see if there are any new comments or advise. I have left a list of references you need to change on the talk page. You need to acknowledge these suggestions and act on them at some point. You can't win this by hoping it will all go away, it won't. Unless it is a good article people will keep nominating it until it gets deleted. I would advise you to stop fiddling around with pictures and actually sort out the quality of the article. I am monitoring the article and the talk page, if you have any questions leave them at the talk page and I will respond. When you have finished improving the references let me know and I will go through them again. I expect to hear from you within 2-3 weeks regarding this. — Realist² (Speak) 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. Any article, unless it's obviously without merit, needs time to make it beyond its foundations; and if you're the only person working on that article, it can be destructive to have people come along and shoot it down in flames. However, it's made it past the first hurdle, and that is good. Whether it will go much further is up to your commitment; those who may criticise you have nothing against you personally, but it's up to you to rise above that and just produce an article that is beyond criticism. Then, you can say "I did this"; against all the odds, and feel proud of it. Go for it! --Rodhullandemu 01:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Rodhullandemu Theres been a misundertanding can you review my statement. [1]

The Almighty King (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator and fourth largest contributor to this article, I wanted to let you know that the article is currently up for deletion again. Ikip (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Almighty King. You have new messages at Sabrebd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]