User talk:Rikstar

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting help
Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

/Archive 1

I'ts been sorted out

Rikstar,disregard my query re:I'm Just Curious. It's been sorted out. Sorry to bother you. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaye9 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation

I've been racking my brains,as to why the Elvis article,remains a B Class article. As I ask myself,is it just the length that is the only problem going on here?

I believe the sandbox version is heading in a positive direction,as most people seem to be happy with this version over the current one.

You said that you looked at the Judy Garland article,which I looked at and I have also read the John Lennon article as well. Bearing in mind that the Judy Garland is a FA article and the John Lennon is a GA article,why isn't Elvis?

My uncle both toured with the Beatles and Judy Garland back in 1964,as well as others. Why I'm pointing this out to you Rikstar,is that he never once spoke ill of any of these people,it's called respect for oneself and others,in other words it's professional,showing some class, whatever you want to call it.

However there is one editor who is not pleased with sandbox version,as he has mentioned that you have taken out alot of the criticism on Presley as well as the relationships etc.

I for one believe in constructive criticism,but grabbing at everything negative that you can find,I carn't for the life of me believe this will help you better understand Presley both as an entertainer and as a person,than you did before. I do not get this feeling from the John Lennon article or the Judy Gardland article as I do with Elvis Presley article and it's got nothing to do with being a fan,as I am a big Lennon fan as well.

As far as the relationships, yes I believe it needs a section. I do like they way the John Lennon article shows this, with only the women who were important to him,not flings not one nights stands.

Joe Esposito mentions,along with the Memphis Mafia fellows that Elvis had many affairs and one night stands,for a general encyclopedia I would class this as trivial. However,they do mention that there was only a few - Anita Wood,Priscilla,Ann Margaret,Linda Thompson,Sheila Ryan and Barbara Leigh-really meant something to him. Perhaps we could do something on them, I think,much more appropriate. What do you think? Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty page - test

Jaye9 has posted in the above section but I can't see it. Will try to transfer it here. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to debrief re:Elvis article

Hi Rikstar, I thought long and hard about this, but may I have your email address Rikstar,so as to converse with you about the Elvis article,I feel by doing so, may or may not save us both alot of time and effort,but heck anything is worth a try. If you would rather not,I'd perfectly understand and would not at all be offended. All the best.--Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left message on my talk page. HELP --Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaye9 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

testing this page

with a few words. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testing

Had problems - editors not able to post here for months. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hound Dog on Milton Berle

Rikstar, This is the one - [1]. The second one is synced pretty well, but you're right, it's another recording with added instrumentation. Note the "slow mo" at the end so that Elvis's moving foot/leg stays "in time" with the music. One of the reasons Presley bombed in Vegas in 56 was that their sound was "tinny", as one wag wrote. (It was the Sinatra days back then). Congrats on finding this. Let me know if you want me to do the replacements, but I'll be on vacation for the next 6 days. Finally, people can see for themselves! Steve Pastor (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presley

Was it such a major change? I know Presley wasn't responsible for composing most of the lyrics he sung, but I thought he at least contributed to the process. --Heslopian (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Festive Cheer

Wishing you and your family a safe and wonderful Christmas. Look forward to editing with you again in the New Year.--Jaye9 (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rikstar,thank you for your comments and yes it is slow and tiring at times,but it's just how it is. However,if I thought that the editors who are contributing to this article showed no integrity and compassion for this entertainer,I would not stick around. I have seen some improvements to this article in the last six months and with time it can only get better. I'm right behind you all the way.--Jaye9 (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis: "Bare Bones"

Hi Rik, thanks for your message on my page. The article is still a good piece, in my honest opinion, and it is tiring for it to be constantly attacked by other users without any real suggestion on how to improve it. As they say, those who can, do, those who can't, critique. Anyway, your suggestion of taking it back to bare bones is an interesting one. I think there are sentences and perhaps even whole paragraphs that could be removed or shortened, but only if it really is necessary. I use Wikipedia to research many things I wish to find out more about, and as a tool for that it is usually quite adequate. I enjoy articles that are easy enough to read for those who are just passing through with a minor interest on a subject, but I also enjoy articles that go that extra mile and do delve into a little more detail for those who wish to have as much of the information as possible. I will back you on any cuts you wish to make, if you feel it will improve the article. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick look at your new version and I think it's very well done. Haven't had a chance to read it word for word yet, but I like the layout and the simplistic nature of it. Excellent work! I'd recommend suggesting it to the talk page if you haven't already done so. I think most would be willing to accept it's a bettered piece. Perhaps others would recommend more for deletion or inclusion but that can be discussed. Good work, Rik.ElvisFan1981 (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the new version as well. If this was the one used as the Elvis aritcle,for the first time I would not hesitate to tell people of my involvement with this article,I would be proud to do so. Rikstar you have gone beyond what is asked from an editor,my sincere thanks to you for your efforts,this is without a doubt GA STATUS.--Jaye9 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rikstar excuse my enthusiasm,but what you have put done in the sandbox and the improvements you have made,is indeed a welcoming breath of fresh air for me. I'll be home for a bit over a week,if it is acceptable with you,I would love to discuss further with you re:new article,about a couple of very minor corrections,or it may be more appropriate for me to wait for you to take it to the Elvis talk page. I just think it's so wonderful what you've done with it.--Jaye9 (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have gone over this new version three times now,carn't find anything else that I can see needs correcting. What do you think?--Jaye9 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple of footnotes that I haven't been able to fix, but everything else seems ok. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 09:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mate,your formating this article and cutting it back some what,the way you have,has enabled me to read this artcle properly again. Something I have not been unable to do for some time now.like it's just been all to hard to deal with,It's like I've just been going through the motions. Were as now I was able to correct three things,without feeling daunted by it all. So you've made this editor happy. We'll just stick to our guns and stay with good reliable sources and we carn't go wrong.--Jaye9 (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued work on Elvis and Hi

Hi. I've noticed you've continued the work on the Elvis page and want to commend you for your efforts. Also wanted to say hi, since its been awhile. --Northmeister (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it. Northmeister (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious

Could I bother you with a question Rikstar. On the Talk:Elvis Presley,under the title: New video about Elvis,in red it says: Cite error<ref>tags exist,but no,<references/>. It also appears on my talk page as well. Would you know what that's about,as I have no idea. Thanks for time. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaye9 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears on my talk page as well. Do you think that has anything to do with the comment I made about Racism. Reference to web about topic? TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaye9 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm really curious

The full text I have written to you has not appeared on your talk page.,nor has my signature. re:I'm just curiou. Now I'm really baffled. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaye9 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'ts been sorted out

Rikstar,disregard my query re:I'm Just Curious. It's been sorted out. Sorry to bother you. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaye9 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation

I've been racking my brains,as to why the Elvis article,remains a B Class article. As I ask myself,is it just the length that is the only problem going on here?

I believe the sandbox version is heading in a positive direction,as most people seem to be happy with this version over the current one.

You said that you looked at the Judy Garland article,which I looked at and I have also read the John Lennon article as well. Bearing in mind that the Judy Garland is a FA article and the John Lennon is a GA article,why isn't Elvis?

My uncle both toured with the Beatles and Judy Garland back in 1964,as well as others. Why I'm pointing this out to you Rikstar,is that he never once spoke ill of any of these people,it's called respect for oneself and others,in other words it's professional,showing some class, whatever you want to call it.

However there is one editor who is not pleased with sandbox version,as he has mentioned that you have taken out alot of the criticism on Presley as well as the relationships etc.

I for one believe in constructive criticism,but grabbing at everything negative that you can find,I carn't for the life of me believe this will help you better understand Presley both as an entertainer and as a person,than you did before. I do not get this feeling from the John Lennon article or the Judy Gardland article as I do with Elvis Presley article and it's got nothing to do with being a fan,as I am a big Lennon fan as well.

As far as the relationships, yes I believe it needs a section. I do like they way the John Lennon article shows this, with only the women who were important to him,not flings not one nights stands.

Joe Esposito mentions,along with the Memphis Mafia fellows that Elvis had many affairs and one night stands,for a general encyclopedia I would class this as trivial. However,they do mention that there was only a few - Anita Wood,Priscilla,Ann Margaret,Linda Thompson,Sheila Ryan and Barbara Leigh-really meant something to him. Perhaps we could do something on them, I think,much more appropriate. What do you think? TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty page - test

Jaye9 has posted in the above section but I can't see it. Will try to transfer it here. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to debrief re:Elvis article

Hi Rikstar, I thought long and hard about this, but may I have your email address Rikstar,so as to converse with you about the Elvis article,I feel by doing so, may or may not save us both alot of time and effort,but heck anything is worth a try. If you would rather not,I'd perfectly understand and would not at all be offended. All the best.--TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left message on my talk page. HELP --TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaye9 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

testing this page

with a few words. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testing

Had problems - editors not able to post here for months. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another test post

I hope this works - this page not accepting messages for too long. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For Letting Me Know

Isn't that great & yes there are kind people out there who will help you.--Jaye9 (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D J Fontana

Hi Rik, thanks for the link to the interview with DJ Fontana. It makes better sense to me now why it was mentioned in the article that he worked in strip clubs, and as you say it wasn't clear before why it was there. I've re-added the information with the link and hope that this time it reads a little better. If you feel it can be worded better then please feel free to alter it. Hope to have you back working on the article soon, your input is very much needed, appreciated and missed. :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you made today are great. I knew of the Timex duplication when I was adding more info about it but I forgot to remove it from later in the article. You're right about Sam Phillips getting Elvis to do some more songs he knew, and it should be mentioned in the article. I'll add a quick note about it now and if you feel you can expand on it or improve it then you can do that when you are able to. Glad to have you back working on the article, even if it's just "dipping a toe in" for now. :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis P

Sure thing. There's a strong base here. If we keep nibbling away at it, bring the citations up to code and such, it should be in shape to gets its GA status restored in a month or two. DocKino (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PL290 has bought you a pint!

Enjoy!

PL290 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and thank you for all of your hard work over the past three-plus years that made this possible. Still can't quite believe it myself. All the best, DocKino (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! And thanks to you both. A hard won achievement. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 10:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A special thank you and congratulations is in order to you Rikstar. For your diligence, and your tireless efforts in always wanting and striving to improve this article over these last three-plus years, but most importantly, for your respect towards your fellow editors, the readers and Elvis Presley. Well done mate!--Jaye9 (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Joel-wiki

I hereby award this Flaming Joel-wiki to Rikstar for their great effort in getting Elvis Presley featured, one Billy Joel's vital articles....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagline?

Please stop posting that random text at the end of the Elvis FAC page every time you post. Also, please endeavor to keep your comments there about the article nomination. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted - I think. My browser isn't displaying markup properly and doing other weird things. I will certainly try to keep on topic, but I'm not going to let misuse of my quotes go unchallenged. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 04:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No that's fine. This particular FAC just has a tendency to "drift" when personal disputes enter into it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos and audios licence free?

Hi Rikstar, Are the photos and audios used in the Elvis article all licence free due to Wikipedia standards? Thanks in advance for your kind reply, --Gutenberg66 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis article

Hey. I think that you and others that are being tagged as the gang that police the article are not aware of how you are coming across to others. I have to tell you that one of the reasons that you don't see me around there is that I have formed the same impression. The change to Presley as an "orginator of rockabilly" from one of the early performers of it was the last straw for me. If you look at the roots of rockabilly, it's clear that it was around years before Elvis did it at Sun. None of the cited authors in our discussion got much into what happened before Elvis. He made the big splash, and he gets the credit, although others were there first. The tone of our discussion was such that there was no point in continuing to "discuss". Now, maybe we aren't charged with doing anything more than going with what most people have written, but my wanting to go back to "Elvis was one of first performers of rockabilly" was soundly rejected with a slew of "authoritative" but very likely incorrect sources rather than discussed as seen from my perspective. I have better things to do than argue with people who obviously have already made up their minds. If I feel this way after all the time I've been around, how are you seen by newbies? I bring this up only to give you some insight into how you are being seen by editors not in "the gang". And, I have to mentio, too, that the treatment of 141 was awfully crude and made me not want to be around to watch as he/she, along with others, were rudely dismissed by one editor in particular. You in particular have written some nice responses to the negative comments.

On another topic, Congrats on seeing ALL of Elvis's movies and visting Memphis. Steve Pastor (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would LOVe to pull all of the Elvis isn;t an orignator stuff together, but I have too many things going on right now. I think if you just look at the Rockabilly article, it's pertty clear. Steve Pastor (talk)

Thought I'd drop by, again. Wikipedia isn't the place to debate this, of course. An Apr 3, 1999 Billboard article lists half a dozen cross over tunes similar to, and preceding, what Elvis Scotty and Bill put out on Sun, then adds that "Presley managed to..." etc, etc Presley listened to Perkins, the Burnettes and Burlison, etc, but they didn't get to cut any records, and didn't have any of Presley's other attributes. This has led me to some other interesting information that will add to a book I'm working on. Once I tracked that stuff down on the poster, I just had to share. Be seeing you around, I'm sure. Steve Pastor (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

For our first official recruitment drive! Starting on Wednesday the 9th of February at 12:30pm. We would love to have you!

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 09:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hi, Rikstar. There's an RfC going on about my poor attitude: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DocKino. I didn't want to drag anyone else into this, but 141 has now gotten involved in it in a major way. I think it's important for the other editors to get some idea of who they're dealing with. I believe you and ElvisFan were subjected to his...unique approach for years before I got involved with Elvis Presley. Maybe you'd care to see a few words at the RfC. Thanks. DocKino (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Presley article

Hi. I recently made a change to Elvis Presley that I think I should run by you, being one of the article's main contributors, here. I made the edit before proposing it b/c I thought showing it would get my proposal across better. Dan56 (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Elvis Presley (estimated annual readership: 4,174,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Elvis Presley to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I am an infrequent visitor to these pages, but I am truly grateful for the recognition. Rikstar⁵¹ 07:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]