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