User talk:Kenotoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, Kenotoo! Thank you for your contributions. I am Masumrezarock100 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Sincerely, Masum Reza 07:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Come play the Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

The
Wikipedia-logo-white.svg
Adventure
The Wikipedia Adventure guide

Hi Kenotoo!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there!


This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot

The Rolling Stones[edit]

Tracks on side two of the albums (of the articles you edited) begin at #1; see this image of the LP record's side two. By the way, no reason was given here in your changes by you. So, as a newbie, let one of your first lessons here be to not call the kettle black. Dan56 (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

First, you don't have to be rude to me like your being.

You note that side 2 of the album starts at #1, but that isn't how the info appears on the Wikipedia page under Personnel. People reading this page and others on this site get totally confused by this. An example of this is (taken directly from your edited page: Keith Richards – electric guitar (1–6, 8, 9, 11, 12), acoustic guitar (7, 9, 10), backing vocals (9–11)... Half of these track numbers make no sense at all the way you now have it. How can Keith be playing electric guitar on tracks 8, 9, 11, 12 if these tracks don't exist? How can he also be playing acoustic guitar on tracks 7, 9, 10 if they don't exist? This mistake is repeated over and over again on the entire page with what you have up there. Plus, since you show - for example, that there's a track 1 on side 1 and another track 1 on side 2, so if Keith is playing electric guitar on tracks 1 thru 6 as you note, then which tracks 1 thru 6 are you talking about - Side 1 or side 2? By noting the tracks as I did, all of that info under Personnel makes sense, your way it makes zero sense. Unless I'm missing something here? Please explain why you list the tracks under Personnel one way and and list them differently under side 2? If I receive no explanation to this from you, since this is your work, I will then ask the main editors about this before changing it back so it makes sense for those who you are confusing.

Also note that I was still working on the page when I returned to add citations and saw you removed the work I added in, so I learned that they need to be noted when the are first made (at least in dealing with you anyway). Yet I don't see any citations in your work, why?

If being rude to others is the way things go here, then Wikipedia isn't worth editing. I've been both a newspaper writer and editor for over 40 years now - longer than you been alive, and when you make an edit to another's work you are suppose to note the reason why. Or is that etiquette not followed here at Wikipedia? Kenotoo (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Gzus, take it easy. Here's an idea: Replace the numbers with track titles, in the personnel section. Dan56 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You're the one who needs to take it easy! Why should I have to replace somebody' else's work? You yourself didn't remove this track # info that you claim is in error, under "personal", you only removed my work that made it easy to read. Why? The thing is, you are in part in error in what you wrote when you explained your actions. Pop in the CD of this album, and for example when you do, the CD - put out by the Stones - notes on any CD player that "I'm a King Bee" isn't track 1 at all - as you noted. It states that it's track 7! So the person who wrote the personal info for this song was correct to note it as track 7, since it is track 7 - and the Stones CD shows that on CD players. So I and that person are correct, it is track 7 on CD. Do I need to bring this up with whoever the main editor is at Wiki for this page, because I will if you won't let me be. We can let them settle it. Or instead, - please explain with a valid reason why you feel that track 7 on the CD is track 1 - and also why other pages on Wiki for other Stones pages show the track order in the very same way I showed it. I only edited one other page in this matter, the rest were done by others - yet you haven't edited them. Why? Are you only picking on me since I'm new here? That seems to be the thing to do by some of you by reading other comments on the site. I do read up on things. I feel you are making a big deal out of nothing on this. Plus, in closing, what was wrong with the other info I noted new on the page? You didn't explain that either. I was correct in what I added in, and I will defend that work too. Do you have any comments as to why you felt my other work was in error? I'd like a reason, or again, I'll ask the site's main editor about this. Kenotoo (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A second lesson for you: Too long; didn't read. Dan56 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

How is that too long? I think what you really meant to say is, that you don't care to read the truth! Or you don't have a decent, kind answer to make to my totally fair questions. Fine. The editors can settle this. But if everybody here is like you, I don't need or want to be a part of this place.Kenotoo (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

All this time and energy spent expressing indignation toward me could have instead been used to replace the track numbers with the actual titles of the songs. But hey, it's your time. Dan56 (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

But that's your suggestion and not mine - why haven't you done it? It's a good idea, and had you taken the time to do this in the past, we won't be having this debate now. Instead you deleted my work that also solved the problem - while doing nothing on your behalf to correct an obvious problem that needs fixing. It seems that you rather just be bossy to others instead of solving clear issues that have been up on that page for a long time. Kenotoo (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Kenotoo, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Kenotoo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG I could get a cheeseburger. Ianrobertson23 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Kenotoo! You created a thread called New users being treated different? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


May 2019[edit]

Information icon Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Beggars Banquet. There is a Manual of Style, specifically MOS:ALBUM#Track listing for articles and their track listing sections, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

To Dan56... Please stop stalking me and talking down to me! You aren't my boss. It appears I made one minor mistake, one that shows up on many pages on Wiki, including other pages involving the Stones. I suggest you fix all of those pages too, since it bugs you so much and they been up in that matter for such a long time, long before I started to edit here. Yet if I make the same mistake, you only take issue with me on this. Why is that? If such a minor mistake is made by others in the past (and it has in this case), it should be taken care of, yes, but no, you should not put down the work of others while over-exaggerating what the problem was, especially when dealing with new editors. There was nothing that was difficult to understand in my work. Before I fixed the issues, yes, it was hard to understand what was noted under "Personnel", since the track numbers before I fixed them made no sense with the personnel info track numbers noted incorrectly to what was showing above it under "Track listing", by whoever did that in the past.... In the future, please explain kindly what the issue is to others without the drama, so the new editor can lean and not make such a mistake again. I would thank you for pointing out that minor mistake I made (and I won't make it again, it's good to know that), but since you stated a falsehood and over-exaggerated the problem, I got better things to do at the moment Kenotoo (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You're accusing me of drama? Gzus, get over yourself. Take it easy, hothead. Dan56 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There you go again Dan56!... telling me this and that like you think you are my boss. But I did read that linked to page anyway, and my, you were the very first and only editor here who it describes that I know of. You act like you know everything, and only you are right. Get over yourself, since you are no better than anybody else who edits here! Plus again, stop stalking me. There should be a page on that here if there isn't. Kenotoo (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I have Beggars Banquet on my watchlist, along with several other Rolling Stones album articles, so I see every change made there. Would you like to reconsider your asinine assumption that I was stalking you? Dan56 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay Dan56, so when you are losing a debate, you resort to name calling and or insults like preteens do. That's clear with you, as now I'm making "asinine assumptions" according to you? There are many editors here I bet that have this LP on their watchlist, yet you and one other person (JG66) are the only 2 editors who are regularly editing and removing my work. I have asked you two before why numerous mistakes that have been up on pages here at Wiki for years, haven't been corrected by either one of you, and still have not gotten a decent answer to my question. You only edit the work of those who are new here, as I see you have done this to others here in the past, too. Keep Wiki a exclusive place where only a few that you agree with get to edit here. But you better get use to me being here, as I'm a retired old man who now has time to clean up the many messes here and falsehoods being protected by people like yourself at Wiki. I now totally understand and see why Wiki is disliked and put down by so many, and you two are to blame for it at least when the Rolling Stones pages are put down by non editors off site reading the misinformation being allowed to stand here. With that noted, you at least have at the same time tried to clean up some messes that I have pointed out (unlike the other person, as I see that there is at least some goodwill in you), so good for you on that. Now if you could just act your age and stop with the name calling and bulling. Kenotoo (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

So your answer to my question is no, then. Dan56 (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry for you, that you have been taking this so personally. But I care more about facts than feelings, and you again presented LP-format sides with incorrect track numbers, which violates not only the style guide that has been referred to you several times in previous discussions elsewhere by others, but also, on a basic level, correctness of information being presented to readers. So, I am not sorry for issuing you a standardized warning regarding this when you have repeatedly made similar changes to other articles and continued so at Beggars Banquet. With that said, given your emotional reactions to such small matters as being on Wikipedia to the detriment of your temperament and health, I am concerned, and I strongly recommend you take a break. You have shown yourself incapable of restricting your opinions to the content of articles and not the editors involved, which is toxic and unbecoming of someone your age (if you are going to continue demeaning me with your intellectually useless and irrelevant comments about my being younger than you), and also a point of emphasis at the "hothead" essay I offered you earlier to read. So if you ping me again, it will be ignored. Dan56 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Dan56 wrote: "So if you ping me again, it will be ignored"... You promised me this over a week ago and you haven't ignored me yet, I wish you would. In regard to your text in the last paragraph, I noted when I changed the track numbers to cosponsored to what another editor wrote under the Personnel part of the page, which made no sense, since the numbers showing didn't exist in the track order that was showing. When I made the change, I noted that the track numbers were now showing as they do on the CD and stream versions of the LP and not for the original vinyl record. This is 100% allowed to be shown on the page - but - I learned later on that the original vinyl release has to be shown too (my mistake there). I noted on the page in question this won't happen again, so why do you bring it up like it's a current issue, when it was cleared up last week? Also, while I might be an old grandpa, I'm in pretty good shape for my age - with just one exception that has nothing at all to do with my mental health, which is sound. Perhaps you need a break from here and not I, as I just got here, yet you seem to live here day and night. BTW, when you start to act your age - I'll be happy to drop the fact that you are so young. Please stop acting like a child here and stop the name calling if you don't wish to be called out for acting like a preteen! Kenotoo (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)