User talk:JpGrB/Archive 3

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


Acknowledge more appropriately

I've noticed you have been giving some responses to people writing about the sequel to the new Halloween, that are not exactly the kind you should. This Halloween sequel thing I have talked to Bignole about it and understand what you 2 are doing and being strict on it. When newcomers come to Wikipedia they think they can edit what they want (and they can.) A lot of them don't read the warnings and stuff. Some of them might have joined just so they can edit their favorite movie or something else. You have been writing "can you read?" a lot when someone adds something on H2. The most recent I noticed was a newcomer. What you should do is go to there User talk page and tell them not to add mention of a sequel yet. If the same person continues to put it down before a sequel article is created then it's another matter. I just think you should bring it down a bit. Knowing from when I first started, I did not pay attention to anything but I do now. Sorry for the paragraph, just bring it down a little and acknowledge the person's mistake on their User talk page.--VampireKen (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Now the latest one if you didn't see is a vandal. Apparently this one does cause trouble.--VampireKen (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Same here. This Halloween thing is starting to become annoying though. I check just to be sure they are not newcomers. like I said one warning should be enough. Well uh... Happy editing!--VampireKen (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

oh it's ok. Yeah I wrote it so then maybe people would understand how fast this film could get canceled. I thought you were talking about their remake. I wrote that at 12:30 A.M so I guess I didn't realize. Sorry. Yeah maybe now people will read the discussion section and find out why no sequel on article. Until later.--VampireKen (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Wikiproject

Hi, I just moved your wikiproject 'WikiProject Psychopathic Records' to Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychopathic Records. Just so you know, Wikiprojects should be in Wikipedia-space [any page that begins with 'Wikipedia:'], but your wikiproject was in article space. It's an easy mistake to make. Also, I'm going to create some shortcuts to your wikiproject so people don't have to type in the whole name to get there. Thanks, TopGearFreak 20:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just added shortcuts. Click WP:PSYCHO and WP:PRECORD and you'll end up on your Wikiproject page. Happy to help! TopGearFreak 20:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Relapse and Before I Self Destruct

Hey, since you reverted my edit (I have various IP addresses and is one of them) I'd like to hear why you did so. My edit was legit: I moved information to a more suitable part of the article and linked 50 Cent earlier than he had been linked before. Please don't think that all anons have crappy edits. Oh and that revert of my edit looks like WP:OWN case. Internet is always spelt with a capital letter, linking is spamming and I see no reason why not to give an exact date for "I Get It In" release. Peace! (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My IP addresses change automatically and I can do nothing about it. Um, I suggest you review your revert. What I did was I moved information from one part of article to another. I didn't add anything, I just formatted it correctly and moved to a more suitable part of article. Also I did not link 50 Cent every time, I linked him earlier and de-linked latter link. I'm aware of WP:OVERLINK. And nah I don't think all users hate anons, it's just so happened that you didn't take time to review my edit with an edit summary to give you some clue as to why I did so. (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to state that you own an aritcle in order to act like you own an article. I reworded information and removed repetive information and you reverted that. I remember that not liking other's wording is a WP:OWN case. (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I must've missed the "not confirmed but thought to be the first single" line, it's plain crystal-balling. As for the "Crack A Bottle", please don't invent new rules. See WP:ALBUMCAPS, it clearly states that a should not be capitalized. Oh and excuse me but your "A new track released in early January 2009 was released featuring Dr. Dre and 50 Cent. The track, entitled "Crack A Bottle", was previously released in an unfinished version, featuring Eminem rapping Dr. Dre's verse, entitled "Number 1" on several mixtapes. It is believed, but not confirmed, to be the first single off the album." sounds really weird. What do you think of "A new track released in early January 2009 featuring Dr. Dre and 50 Cent titled "Crack a Bottle" had been previously released in an unfinished version, featuring Eminem rapping Dr. Dre's verse, entitled "Number 1" on several mixtapes."? Let me know, thanks. (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
"I Get It In" is correct per the above mentioned WP:ALBUMCAPS. By inventing new rules I meant that you ignore WP:ALBUMCAPS and write with capital a citing Wikipedia-unrelated source. Please also keep in mind that some sources don't even bother thinking of capitalizing correctly, I mean some may capitalize everything, like does sometimes. So you shouldn't take "sources" as correct way of spelling. Excuse my not-perfect English, peace. (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Another 40 Glocc album?

Hey, apparently there's an album by 40 Glocc called Street Hop, although I'm not sure if it's an album or mixtape. Just thought you would be interested. (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

White Tee

Hey, I wonder why you've reverted most of my edits on the White Tee article.

So, firstly.

"Pittsburgh Post Gazette" should be itacilized. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) in the "Examples" section. Astounding Science Fiction and Life magazine are itacilized.

Then, check out the code in Template:Infobox Single. The spaces are seen. And also notice the paragraph "try and fill out as many spaces as you can."

Holiday56 (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi, how explaining your specific problems with my edits instead of simply blanket reverting them? Str1977 (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not call him a mass murderer in the article, merely in my edit summaries. What the writers say cannot simply be parroted. The films definitely depict him as killing several people. By repeating how the Jigsaw killer is described by characters within the films (including himself) the article justifies his actions and that is what I meant by apologetics. Assuming for a moment I took formal arguments like "Featured Article" seriously, could you tell me what exactly you are referring to by that? Which parts of that article are taken from these articles and in what way do they have to appear in this one? Str1977 (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Becoming "featured" is not always the same as being a good article (I agree that it should be like this but it isn't always). Hence, I prefer to be convinced by actual arguments instead of featured article X does it. Anyway, featured article Y does not.
I still don't understand the "cameo" format but at least I understand now that you were not referring to any Saw character articles. I will take a look at your response at the talk page. Str1977 (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
PS. In those instances, in which you agree, you should restore my edits. Thanks. Str1977 (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
PS. In those instances, in which you agree, you should restore my edits. Thanks. Str1977 (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you are finished eating now, you should restore my edits in those instances, in which you agree. Otherwise I would have to restore my edits in those instances I agree, i.e. in all instances. Str1977 (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Reverting vandalism."

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edits (1, 2) twice seeing them as vandalism. Mind you, they were not. Next time, please check what you are reverting. It's at all not hard to check one radio button higher than your edit's. Thanks. (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


Hello! You may be interested in commenting here. Thanks, Do U(knome)? yes...or no 07:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


thanks for keeping in touch with me, its not that Timothy Hodge is notable, its just that each time i try to put the information in, something happen and the whole article messes up, so i just got tired of doing it, i think he should be in the main space by now, he's a najor radio host now, i wish u could help me out

user:daisy404 —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

Folie A Deux

May I ask why you keep reverting my sourced addition to the aforementioned article? A source is of more value than a fan discussion. Addug (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


Well I do not know which website is the official site. So I think it would be better to wait till MTV or a more reliable source confirms it. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 04:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah if you want to. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 04:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, removing them is best. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 04:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Sorry man, but screw you. You have no grounds upon which to block me. You've definitely got me for making a legitimate film page for a movie that is well on its way into production in a less than four weeks, but I have yet to see where that's a crime. If this "encyclopedia" is ruled by the mob, then I will refuse to help enhance it henceforth and will encourage all my colleagues to boycott it as well. This film has a release date, has a set cast, has a teaser poster, etc., etc., etc. We have pages for all sorts of upcoming films for this year, some even beyond the August 28th release date of this film, and yet there are people like you that for some bizarre reason don't want there to be an information page for it, despite the fact that we keep seeing new information come in about it all over the web. Keep the page the way you want to, but know that abuse of powers can also get you into trouble as well, and I'm of a mind to report some of you for false assertions of power. Horrorfan78 (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Right there, you admit you do not have the power and yet threatened to block me knowing you did not have the power to do so. If anyone's getting reported, it's you I'm afraid. I have done nothing wrong, yet you have harassed a new user trying to help make the wiki look better and give more accurate information on a legitimate film. Just because you or your buddies don't want there to be a page doesn't mean the vast majority don't. So be mindful that overstepping your own boundaries can also get you in trouble, and if your own confrontational attitude toward me continues, I will report you to a legitimate admin. P.S. I'm of a mind to boycott this illegitimate encyclopedia if it's going to be ruled by the mob as they say. Your definition of what's a legitimate movie and what's not may not agree with the standard, and perhaps mine does as well. But it's a known fact there's other films that come out after August 28th that have pages on here, so I see no reason this film shouldn't have one, especially when everything for it is in place and is going to go into production in less than four weeks. Horrorfan78 (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying this man but " will be blocked" is a threat you made. Look back at your own words, and it's quite plain. And I have violated NO "guidelines or policies" of any kind, other than creating a page for a legitimate film. Sorry but you and I will have to agree to disagree there. As I said, I would recommend you quit harassing me or it is I that will be doing the reporting. Horrorfan78 (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a care how you said it, you still made the threat and implied you were going to do it yourself, so I'm afraid you won't weasel your way out of that one. And by making statements like that knowing you don't hold that power can get you into trouble, and as I said, I would recommend you quit your false accusations which have no truth to them whatsoever (I have violated no rules or regulations, so please quit the BS) and move on down the road before I do decide to take it to a real admin that actually does have blocking power on harassment charges. P.S. Be careful of statements that can be interpreted as unwarranted threats and asserting power you don't have. If you don't have blocking power, don't imply that you do just to get your way. Horrorfan78 (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for catching my typo on Lost. Becaming! LOL--Sixtrojans (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. Just wondering why you undid my edit so quickly on the Lost Season 5 page. The word "is" is a verb and therefore should be capitalized in all titles according to the Chicago Manual of Style. Icarusmonkey (talk)11:20, 29 January 209 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I should have realized Wikipedia would have its own style guide. In that same page, however, I believe the third paragraph supercedes the first, as our capitalization in question is in reference to a title of an episode, not a page title (yet, anyway). It states:

Since "is" is neither a preposition nor a coordinating conjunction but a verb, it should be capitalized - though I admit it may cause the title to look slightly strange.

The Chicago Manual of Style is a definitive style guide that I refer to when I am unsure about things like this. You can also read about it here on Wikipedia; there's a link to it on WP:CAPS. Icarusmonkey 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


Hey man. The fact that Ben's mother died in delivery is entirely relevant to the pregnancy aspect to the story. If it wasn't relevant, then it wouldn't have been on the show. The Lost Mythology page is nothing more than a collaboration of factual data, 99% of it without an explanation (welcome to Lost). Just because the back story to Ben and his mother hasn't been developed doesn't make it irrelevant. But there is definitely a link between a) Mothers on the island don't survive their pregnancies, and b) Ben, the leader of the island, his mom did not survive her pregnancy. You can't deny that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:NightHunter35

I think he has had far too many warning. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 02:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 03:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Cheetah Girls: One World

Excuse me, but the notice at the top is to clean it up. On the first 2 Cheetah pages it actually has the cast lists and Release Dates. I tidied the page up. If you go onto the International Official Website for the film then you will see yourself when they aired so I just put them all in a table on the wikipage and tidied it up loads. You're the one breaking the rules here pet, especially since it says in black, white and colour at the top of the page to get the page clean, so I did. Let's see who will be blocked when this is looked at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Original Thought? They're not, they're from official websites, go on them yourself and have a look, I can assure you its all accurate. Want me to put a reference on it all? Fine, I'll do it in the morning.-- (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

50 Cent's Curtis

I don't think Curtis ever sold over 2 million in the US or 6 million worldwide. One of the references for those figures states that it only sold 1,342,000 copies as of Oct. 19, 2008 (21). How could an album that's already one year old sell an additional 1 million albums by December? Plus, the other link (22) for the supposed 6 million albums isn't even available anymore. It's a dead link. As far as I can tell, there are no legitimate sources available to state that Curtis sold anymore than the first figure stated in Oct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Zack and Miri

Well, I don't see anything wrong with it, but then again, you might see me as biased, since I'm the one who mostly wrote the current version. What do you feel is wrong with it? Nightscream (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Linking to external sites

Is this a Wikipedia no-no? I wasn't trying to ruffle any feathers by adding the links. I was just trying to offer content to Wikipedia users who were interested in the topic. I saw where there was an external link to the Suicide Girls interview with Eliza Dushku and thought the links I added offered similar content. Please let me know what I am doing wrong as opposed to making me feel bad for editing a site that is meant to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says "most fansites." Where is the line drawn? We have our own company, we have access to Fox's publicity website and we participate in things like conference calls. How is that different than the link or the new link that popped up there today? We are also contributing to make the Dollhouse (TV Series) Wikipedia page a better page overall with more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


I started a page on the discussion page regarding the dispute we are having regarding the SICKNESS on LOST, including our different views on this. please respond to it there before more revising/edit warring happens. Whippletheduck (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC).

Now I can remove all 'inferences' which would be original research and flat out say that Danielle was the one acting under dementia. We were not shown enough to know what REAL changes took place to her crew, but to take the extraordinary step of killing them? In the exchange with Robert, and then in attempting to kill Jin, Danielle was acting under durress, and I did not see Robert do anything that implied he was changed (yes, he tried to shoot her but when the woman has already killed two (perhaps three) of your friends in what he would see as cold blood and is raving about you being changed by the Smoke Monster...well, I think Robert acted consistently within that scope). And I can say this based on directly how Danielle conducted herself in that episode as a clear conclusion. The continuity error is definitely something that needs to be brought up, in that Danielle directly said the Others infected them- I personally think that Danielle may well have 'removed' the Monster from her memory as post-traumatic stress after the killings and convinced herself after the Other's stole Alex, that they did the disease as well; and thus in her mind removed any guilt on her part for what she did if she thought she was in the wrong. Or, it is entirely possible that the writers on the show forgot that Danielle had already said that the Other's infected her crew and just forgot about that fact.

I am going to wait until the Enhanced Episode air's this wednesday. If they address the continuity gap on the show, I will directly use that as their final verdict on why it was done this way. If they don't, well, we can continue the discussion then. Whippletheduck (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As you saw they did not really address the error in continuity on the enhanced version. Since your being a little you know what about it, I switched to the official ABC summary and just know if you continue to revert my edit from now on, you'll be reported for edit warring. Whippletheduck (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jigsaw Killer

Please dialog with me on the talk page for this article. I want to avoid an edit war. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC).

I am asking you again to please stop reverting my edits to this article before discussing the matter with me on the talk page. If you do it again without discussion, I will request WP:RFC regarding your refusal to collaborate. (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Eminem and Shady Records

Hello! In regards to the current dispute on the Relapse article in regards to Shady Records, I just wanted to say that Eminem has actually released both of his last albums under Shady Records, as well as the usual Interscope, Aftermath, Goliath Artists and Web Entertainment. I personally own the CD of The Eminem Show and the deluxe version of Encore, and I can confirm that all these labels are mentioned in both albums' booklets. Does this mean the same will happen to Relapse? Not certainly, some of the contractual agreements may have changed since 2004, especially given the lawsuit of the Bass Brothers to Interscope from 2007 that just recently was accepted by a court. Thanks, Do U(knome)? yes...or no 00:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JpGrB. You have new messages at Udonknome's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Do U(knome)? yes...or no 01:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JpGrB. You have new messages at Udonknome's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AGAIN! ;) Do U(knome)? yes...or no 02:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JpGrB. You have new messages at Udonknome's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Do U(knome)? yes...or no 02:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For Relapse...

In case you were interested, I started a thread on the talk page how to improve the current article. Thanks, Do U(knome)? yes...or no 04:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Information.svg Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.--F-22 Raptor IV 02:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --F-22 Raptor IV 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Characters of Lost

Threaten me all you want. If my account is blocked, I will create another. The edits I made were to correct a problem in the article. I made the edits in good faith, with no intention of engaging in an "edit war." I provided an explanation for each edit, but in spite of my explanations, my edits were reversed. When asked to provide sourcing, I did so. My edit was reversed again. I will not allow the error in this article to go uncorrected. I am happy to discuss what to do about this problem on the discussion page, provided my edit is not reversed again until a consensus is reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrsightes (talkcontribs) 03:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My goodness, it's remarkable that such a small amount of power can go to someone's head. Much like the hall monitor in school.
What we are dealing with here is an article about fiction. There are no hard sources, only implicit ones. When dealing with a question of fiction, a source that indicates an answer is the best you are going to get. Seeing no sourcing (explicit, implicit, or otherwise) to indicate that Ellie and Eloise are separate characters, I changed the entry in question. If you disagree with my edit, the appropriate way to handle that is to provide an explanation or reference that contradicts what I've posted---not to simply undo my edit without reason, and then threaten me with blocking. That's a childish response, and there's no excuse for it. Jrsightes (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Jumping in here - you can't prove a negative. We have to have sources that affirm that something is the case, not claim something because no sources are found to say that it is not the case. It just doesn't work that way. Find a reliable source that says that Eloise and Ellie are one and the same - and such a source may well materialize as the season continues - and then it goes in. But not finding one that says they are not the same person proves nothing. Tvoz/talk 02:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi - ok, can you explain what you mean about Nikki and Paolo? They're not in the cast photo for season 3 which I would think is one indication of "main"-ness and whatever the original plans might have been for them, clearly they didn't pan out ad they didn't end up in that season as main characters - so why should we perpetuate something that didn't happen? It's not making a whole lot of sense to me the way it reads now. Thanks Tvoz/talk 02:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ok I see what you're saying - and I think I've heard this before (I probably moved them some other time too - at least I'm consistent) - but it does raise questions to me when I look at the characters page. I guess I'll leave it as it is though, at least for now, unless we modify the structure overall. Thanks for the response! Tvoz/talk 03:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Same here! Tvoz/talk 03:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

sawspace forum

The Saw VI Director is a member so surely that counts for something? Who died and made you in charge of the Saw wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Saw VI

Point taken. I agree that we should keep with the format of the other articles, so no table. However, I would like to add a table to all of the articles eventually.

As for John vs. Jigsaw, I, as a fan, agree: John is his appropriate title. However, this is encyclopedic and John is MUCH more commonly known as Jigsaw. So, I made a compromise and reformatted it to include both names.

In at 8th reference(the one from FEARnet), look down to the heading: "Is it safe to say we’ll at least be seeing Tobin and Costas Mandylor and Mark Rolston again?", there he confirms lead characters: John, Hoffman, Erickson. And he also confirms Betsy russell as an "other", or minor role. Look closely at his format and you'll note he is indeed confirming the characters I listed. And, this is the director speaking, so it is obviously a reliable source.

So, I am going to out add in the characters, but not in a table format. Do you agree with my reasoning?

Thank you for your time, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Relapse (Album)

You reverted my changes (without comment, though they were good faith changes) on the Relapse album article. Just thought I should notify you that I added some comments to the talk page, which I must apologise for! I looked through the talk page before making the change, but somehow, stupidly, I did not notice the obvious section dealing with the title I changed! However, afterwords, I was able to add my justifications to the talk page's section regarding the title. I just wanted to let you know that I'm up for debate there if you have anything to say (please don't revert my changes without comment like you did the last time), thanks. Chris b shanks (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


Having spoken to Kevin myself, he has confirmed that he is ONLY directing and that his colleague Andrew Coutts will be doing all the editing this time around. Please change back. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


I've asked JackyBoy for resolving the dispute. Because the facts in play are 100% on my side here, if I were a less noble person, I would undo your revision and let it go to a 3RR dispute and watch you and TRP get blocked for a day, but I'll let Jacky resolve it. Whippletheduck (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

red links

Regarding your edit, yes, I know it's a red link - if there is no link, then "what links here" doesn't display it. I'm guessing you have some aversion to red links? May I bother you to explain to me what that aversion is? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
(P.S. Please reply here - I like seeing both sides of the conversation in the one place. Thanks again, in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

I actually do apologize. I've been contacted before about this. I keep forgetting that red links are helpful. In all honesty, I had thought you possibly created a page that was immediately deleted on previous grounds for that article. That's been happening quite a bit on some other pages I've been watching. I do apologize once again. You were correct. --HELLØ ŦHERE 16:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem. (However, turning that red link blue looks like it's going to be "a challenge"!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Saw VI

I am going to assume Good Faith here, but your revert was unhelpful to the article. The grammar was fixed for better fluency and reader comprehension. The editor has, despite a comment here above mine, not been officially confirmed at all. And in casting, James Van Patten is an article, so a link should be included. As far as the Cary Elwes section, good edit. It is incorrect and unconfirmed, so yeah. I was about to edit it away myself in a moment. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Redesigning the View Askew Project Page

Hello, JpGrB. I have been working on redesigning the main page for the View Askew WikiProject at this page. So before I went on and changed the main page, I wanted to ask all the members how they felt about it. So could you take a look at it and give any suggestions to improving it on the project's talk page? Thank You. WikiGuy86 (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Saw VI Actors

That's ok, I know it's nothing against me. It just seems like they should have their indivdual places,since when more information is released,say we get six more actors with "unspecified roles" It won't look "nice"(as my Novel Cinema teacher put it with assignments that I've done) to have them all in one big string of names saying they all have unspecified roles. Anyways, that's just what I've been taught. On another topic, where are you from? I'm from Newfoundland, Canada. Hope to hear from you :). Kagome 77 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

LMAO, you think that's boring? Do you get a lot of snow? Where I live, in winter,when we get snowstorms we get A LOT of snow(25 cm and up). Kagome 77 (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha yea. We had an Earthquake in Newfoundland on April 28th,2009. I never felt it, because it did not occur in the part of the province I was in, but it occurred in other parts, from what the news has said. I believe the last earthquake we had was in 1929 (way before I was born) from the research I did. Kagome 77 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what do you want to know? I don't know anything about the plot yet,just from what I've read on here. Kagome 77 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

lol, I think the current revision is fine, especially since a citation was put in to prove that this is indeed the plot. I'm not a huge fan of the Saw movies, I just like murder stories/mysteries. My favorite TV show is NCIS. I used to like CSI: NY, but now that I don't see it very often anymore(it only comes on CBS now,and it comes on too late for me- I don't feel like staying up until 11:30 p.m. my time to watch it), I've kinda lost interest in that. Do you watch NCIS? I seen that you like The Simpsons, I also watch that too :)Kagome 77 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it's good that you put a reference there. That's smart, since if you didn't, some people may not believe that what was there is the actual plot, since many times before people have put in fake plots in articles(for example, saying Dr. Gordon is back as Jigsaw's apprentice). Kagome 77 (talk)

Neither do I. I'm just as clueless as you are. Kagome 77 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Widmore

Updated DYK query On May 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Widmore, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Lost (season 5)

Concerning this edit, what was wrong with the link as Naomi Dorrit? Bypassing the redirect will make fixing the kind of "anchor rot" that broke it the last time harder.
Cheers, Amalthea 17:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The past redirect was wrong. I updated it. If we can link it properly, no need for redirects. --HELLØ ŦHERE 17:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
In 2008, there was a redirect at Naomi Dorrit that pointed to Characters of Lost#Other Kahana crew members, and the character description of Naomi Dorrit was found on Characters of Lost in the section "Other Kahana crew members".
January 24, this was changed and the character description was placed in the "Widmore and employees" section, and the section anchor at Naomi Dorrit was updated accordingly, so that all links to her bio still scroll to the section.
However, in Lost (season 5), the link didn't point to the redirect page, but to the out dated section Characters of Lost#Other Kahana crew members, and it was not changed accordingly. I noticed this today, five months later, saw that there was a correct redirect at Naomi Dorrit, and fixed the link. Minutes later, you changed the link to bypass the redirect, making it point directly Characters of Lost#Widmore and employees.
It is fairly likely that the section name where that character description is placed will change its name again at some point in the future. This means that we will again end up with dozens of broken section links for months, like the last time, even if the redirect page is changed right away to reflect that change.
You say "no need for redirects" above, but there actually is no reason not to use a redirect in cases like these. They centralize the section name as good as we can, they potentially allow expanding the character description into a full blown page without needing to hunt for all pages that link to the old section, and they are cheap. See also WP:NOTBROKEN.
Cheers, Amalthea 18:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
If you don't mind, then I will restore the indirect link to the character description. Amalthea 11:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal/addition of whitespace

I'm curious, why do you so adamantly remove the readability spacing between the infobox and the main body text of the Star Trek (film) article (like this), yet you add a functionally-similar line of whitespace here? In both cases, the changes you made have no effect on the final rendered version of the page. The presence or absence of those single extra blank lines serve only to increase or decrease the readability of the wiki markup for an editor looking at the article source, and both versions produce identical HTML output. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I wasn't upset, just curious for your reasoning behind your changes. My question was mainly directed at the space between the infobox and the text body, but you did bring up a point about the spacing between the pipes... true, you save an extra character of horizontal space, but in my opinion the extra padding makes the field names easier to read when they're not right up against the pipe. Of course, a lot of these types of things rest heavily on personal stylistic preference.
But getting back to the infobox/body line break, having a single line of whitespace between the infobox and the beginning of the body actually does not add any additional gaps in the final rendered version of the page. If you've seen a page where that was the case, it was likely either a different infobox template (i.e. not Template:Infobox Film) that may have improperly embedded a linebreak inside its template code, or there may have been more than one line of whitespace between the boxes.
What I've found with some experimentation is that one line of whitespace or no whitespace between an infobox and the start of the body text will render identically — the text body and top of the infobox will both start at the same vertical height. A visible gap on the page will not be created until two or more lines of whitespace are inserted in the wiki markup (and from what I've observed, additional units of "gap" are only added for every two blank lines, so 4 and 5 blank lines will create 2 gaps, 6 and 7 lines will create 3 gaps, etc.). You can experiment yourself by previewing or sandboxing with an infobox and some text, and then viewing the HTML source of the rendered page in each case. So for instance, here is the relevant chunk of HTML generated by the wiki software for both the version before you removed the blank line and after, and an additional test version with two blank lines inserted (which previewed with a visible gap):

Previous version with the blank line between infobox and body text:

<th style="white-space:nowrap; text-align:left;">Followed by</th>
<td class="" style=""><a href="/wiki/Star_Trek#Franchise_future" title="Star Trek">Untitled :sequel</a></td>
<p><i><b>Star Trek</b></i> is a <a href="/wiki/2009_in_film" title="2009 in film">2009</a>

Your version without the blank line between infobox and body text:

<th style="white-space:nowrap; text-align:left;">Followed by</th>
<td class="" style=""><a href="/wiki/Star_Trek#Franchise_future" title="Star Trek">Untitled sequel</a></td>
<p><i><b>Star Trek</b></i> is a <a href="/wiki/2009_in_film" title="2009 in film">2009</a>

Test edit with two blank lines between infobox and body text:

<th style="white-space:nowrap; text-align:left;">Followed by</th>
<td class="" style=""><a href="/wiki/Star_Trek#Franchise_future" title="Star Trek">Untitled sequel</a></td>
<p><br />
<i><b>Star Trek</b></i> is a <a href="/wiki/2009_in_film" title="2009 in film">2009</a>
So, as you can see above, zero or one lines of whitespace between the infobox and the body text will produce identical HTML output, so it is perfectly safe to leave the extra readability line break in the markup without fear of it producing a gap in the final rendered version of the page, and I would contend that including the blank line is more desirable for readability while editing. The only thing to potentially worry about is if there are multiple consecutive blank lines, in which case you'd want to trim them down. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

star trek

why did you revert my star trek edit regarding the BB music clip in the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caffeine USA (talkcontribs) 23:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

rather than just deleting, please work with my edit. If you've seen the movie then you know my edit is true. So, how can I source this ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caffeine USA (talkcontribs) 00:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Eminem signed to Shady Records(?)

Sorry, I didn't mean to simply undo it/start an edit war. The talk page suggests that the last agreement is Eminem is not signed to his label, the same way that 50 Cent isn't signed to G-Unit Records. If it's not referenced throughout the article that Eminem is signed to Shady then doesn't it constitute as original research? This is a very well referenced article that lacks wherever Eminem is suggested to be an artist of the label, from the "Artists" section to the "Discography". I simply don't think that even if it is true that it should be added until reliable sources are referenced in agreement. This is something I wanted to put up for GA, but after looking it over and seeing that, it is clear that it cannot be done yet. -- Harish (Talk) - 12:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha right, to be honest though I do see how the albums could be called Shady releases. My main issue with the discography is that it's simply unreferenced. The reason I wanted to remove Eminem from the Artists section is the eliminate the belief that he is signed to his own label (I didn't want to state he isn't as I cannot ref that) and further more the whole section was just not referenced. That is basically it. I can deal with the changes, it's jsut referencing is my main principal so if that's done reliably, I'm set bro. -- Harish (Talk) - 17:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Alpert (Lost) Re: Follow the Leader as a centric episode

Hello. You said on the history page for Richard Alpert (Lost) that I must participate in the discussion. I just wanted to point out that I am participating. Thank you. Gefred7112 (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

40 Glocc

Your 40 Glocc page is good. I've changed the one in the main space to look like the one in your user space since whoever copied and pasted it didn't do a very good job. I've also made a few small edits (to spelling, etc.) and added it to WikiProject Hip Hop so it'll get some more help from there.  Anonymous  Talk  Contribs 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

i dont know why this JpGrB boy keeps changing 40gloccs info im his manager if you have any questions contact me at admin or on the contact tab or on twitter @40GloccCom please do not change this dont type what you dont know

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bl836 (talkcontribs) 07:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Hello, sorry to bother you but re: your undoing of my edit on "316", my reasoning was: if you have "having + past participle" (in this case returned) you can't use "since". Also you know have the word "previous" twice in 4 words describing separate things.--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleveland Show

You wanna point me to the guideline? CTJF83Talk 17:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, it doesn't say to list produced number, instead of aired number, just saying that if you go with the produced number, a source is required. But I'm not gonna argue over it, I've learned that is useless here. CTJF83Talk 17:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I hardly think an infobox = guidelines. Why is it necessary to list 35 episodes, when the first hasn't even aired, and 2 seasons, when the first hasn't even aired? Illogical to me. CTJF83Talk 18:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you are editing the show a lot, can you provide your input here? CTJF83Talk 02:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stacks on Deck Entertainment

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Stacks on Deck Entertainment. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacks on Deck Entertainment. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek

Thank you for your comments.

This is nor "original research". Also - there have been an elaborate discussion, already, regarding the edit. Please appreciate the effort already put into this.

Note: The "alternate reality" interpretation, DOES NOT cite any references, and it brutally ignore another interpretation, voiced by so many others.

What I have done is descibed BOTH, thus allowing the reader to decide for herslef', as to which interpreatation she prefers to subscribe to.

Now I am going to return the previous version. Please wrok WITH me, not against me, if you feel there is room for improvement.

Thank you.

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


Contrary to your description, I haven't taold you that you were wrong. Rather - I have spcecifically indicated in the text of the article, that THERE ARE TWO VIEPOINTS. Regardless of the fact that I can definitely see why THE CURRENT, SINGLE, DESCTIBED VIEWPOINT, IS NOT ONLY STUPID, BUT RATHER ALSO - ABUSIVE, WITH RESPECT TO ALL THOSE WHO HOLD THE OTHER (UNMENTIONED) VIEPOINT, I specifically took the trouble to mention BOTH, whereas YOU HAVEN'T BOTHERED.

You shall immediately, out of you own volition, calm down your emotional reflexes of tantrums, and of abuse towards other people's views, provoking war related to an ARTICLE ABOUT A MOVIE (!!!), NOT ABOUT SRVIVAL OF MANKIND, or you shall be made to calm yourself down, irrespective of your will. Please consider this a final warning on this matter.

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

there is currently an ANI discussion regarding this user and his behaviors. It is located [[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that depends, what's the information? SE KinG. User page. Talk. 23:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if it's for the actual Rebirth page then I don't see why you would need lengths of tracks because we don't really need a confirmed track box yet. But if it's for a single page then I think iTunes might be more reliable. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 23:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah well, why don't you send me the link and tell me what page you'll be adding it to so I can make a better suggestion. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 23:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't see why it wouldn't be. I never understood why people expected track lengths to be sourced. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 23:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Always willing to help. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 23:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


JpGrb, let me ask you something, are you familiar with family guy. --Pedro J. the rookie 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in a let's call it proyect to boost up family guy to GA or FA, or at least the characters, and looks to me that your a good editor, and if i see what you have better then me, so i was wondering if you have free time, will you join me, i already have some expirience and if you have any dout tell me. are you abored. --Pedro J. the rookie 21:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC

in what way are you expert on characters or the spesific artical of the series.--Pedro J. the rookie 22:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

good looks like your the perfect, but are you willing to be editing in an artical for quite a time. if so let us get started. --Pedro J. the rookie 22:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

as a question what do you see in family guy that could be fixed . --Pedro J. the rookie 22:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I want you to help me but family guy up for GA and later FA are you willing. --Pedro J. the rookie 01:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i think if there is something to edit about family guy is the main page.--Pedro J. the rookie 02:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, go ahed i will countinue on fG tell me if you need help. --Pedro J. the rookie 02:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

is the this artical GA matirial Patriot Games (Family Guy).--Pedro J. the rookie 18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

i have been working on family guy with a buddy of mine(you may know him Bovineboy2008, mostly he has cleaned up and i have deleted spaces with no good refrences.) and if you could check it out, and tell me on what it could be expanded or cleaned, could you tell me, thanks.--Pedro J. the rookie 04:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Oh what a surprise, I was right all along. I told you months ago that it was Andrew Coutts but you were hellbent on removing my submissions. Next time, don't doubt me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


I'm sure the admins will block the IP soon enough. In the meantime, I'm happy to let it have its fun 'messing with people on the Internet'; ie: stop giving it attention and it'll get bored and move on. DP76764 (Talk) 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, saw that. Just another troll on the Internet trying to annoy people to the greatest extent possible. DP76764 (Talk) 19:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem; it's always a pleasure working with other talented Wikipedians. DP76764 (Talk) 19:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree; the other article is a much better place for the info (though it could use some sources?). If the IP wanted to add the info their table has to that page, that would far more useful than what they're trying to do. But trolls are usually not interested in working constructively with others, sadly. DP76764 (Talk) 20:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Great, the report was blanked without any action; I'm actually kind of surprised, as it was pretty clear that the IP was not willing to discuss anything constructively. Perhaps you should have reported on this board instead: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring DP76764 (Talk) 20:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:AGF, WP:ATWV, and WP:3RR. If it was reported to WP:AN3 they would both be blocked. I have asked for discussion to happen on the article's talk page, and I see the IP has already made a start. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


WikiProject Family Guy Hello JpGrB. You have been invited to join WikiProject Family Guy, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Family Guy-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Family Guy}} to your userpage.

--Pedro J. the rookie 19:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of cancellation

Cancellation [2][3] is the correct spelling of the word (yes, the correct American spelling). Cancelation is listed as another way to spell it on some dictionaries[4][5], however. Please stop reverting my edits to King of The Hill that use the correct spelling. Thank you.--Henry talk 06:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained Revert

Can you explain why you reverted my changes to the Soulja Boy Tell 'Em article. I know that it is his remix rather than a song he himself wrote/made but if it has Lil wayne on it then surely it should be mentioned there? Regards, FM talk to me | show contributions ]  09:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I know that in most cases, You are correct, a mention of a song would not belong there. However, As I stated above, it is after a mention of Lil wayne. The article currently says "...he stated he wished to work with artists such as Jay-Z, Lil Wayne, and Kanye West among others." If Lil wayne is given then shouldn't it be mentioned that he, sort of, has? Other wise it is a bit misleading. Regards, FM talk to me | show contributions ]  16:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

read this,_Something,_Something,_Dark_Side#JpGrB Wattlebird (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

....Dark Side

At first I removed it cause Wattle was just on a soapbox complaining for no reason on an article page, instead of your talk. But I agree with you. We shouldn't use retail sites as references. Waddle also did a clear copyright violation by copying exactly from . I think your revision is much better! We just have to keep reverting and get a consensus for your version, which is better. I also don't like Grande13 adding twitter sites and other fan sites as references. CTJF83Talk 06:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Right after my first post to you, I wrote on wattle's page asking him not to just copy and paste info, because it is a copyright violation. Hopefully he won't revert again. (I'm sure he will though). You can bring it to WT:FG if you want, but personally I'd wait a couple of days, to see if Wattle understand that what he did was a copyright violation and that we shouldn't use retailers as reliable release dates. If you wanted to post an inquiry on WT:FG that'd be fine too, I'll comment in support of you. CTJF83Talk 06:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


You have had run ins with this editor (on the Saw VI page), and it appears she is an actress who is trying to use WP to promote herself, which now includes adding herself to films (starting with Mother's Day 2010). She also seems to have a vendetta against my talkpage. I would appreciate a second editor taking a look at this. I've blanked her user talkpage and warned her for inappropriate use of her userpage (though is was her talkpage), I don't think she is here to make serious edits but I don't want this to seem like I am picking on her in any way. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate knowing that I am not alone in thinking this editor is not being constructive, I have tried to give them the benefit of the doubt but given their overreaction to simple reverts I don't think they have much to contribute. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy with that message. No doubt once they are online again they will continue what they have been doing but I feel I have been as patient as I can with them, and some people seem to fundamentally fail to grasp what this project is about, especially when the only source they offer for edits is "a conversation with Shawnee Smith". Darrenhusted (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay you guys be fine its just that i know saw 6's running time and a petition stated it will make around 19 million in opening day if darren was being a good editor he would have been nice and tried to help hey im just here to give out good infomation not bad i have put a plot into Boogeyman 3 and it was alittle off but there was no plot then a user put a more better one in that user was doing a good thing they did not just delete it to make there self feel better im leaving in like 1 day to film 1 small part in Mother's Day (2010 film i dont need this if im doing something wrong warn me okay revert it whatever i dont give a fuck anymore im not attacking anyone here its just what i think non attacker is here.

Diplomat Records

Look, not many other pages have the same discography template. The Death Row Records discography is entirely different from what is on the other record labels pages and it's the same one I've been using on the label pages because it's smaller and more streamlined. I also don't think that the singles should be on the label discography because both the Roc-A-Fella Records and Death Row Records articles do not list the singles for their releases and the singles thing probably came from Template:Discography which is mainly used on the artist's pages. Taylor Karras (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


Thank you with pointing [[6]] this out to me. I never knew that was what single brackets were for. B.s.n. R.N.contribs 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Before I Self Destruct

Thankyou for your recent contribution to the article. This is much more acceptable. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

The Cleveland Show

FYI, the established convention (as put in practice across most television articles) is to only update the infobox count when an episode or season actually airs. Details of total number of episodes produced, seasons commissioned, and so on are of course suitable for inclusion in the body copy. The infobox documentation you referred to is used when deciding how to fill in the field for series that go off the air before all of the produced episodes air. (For example, Firefly (TV series).) I understand your thoughts with regards to the referenced material, but what you were posting is again contrary to the established practice, and should be discussed at the Television project first as it would have major ramifications for all series articles. --Ckatzchatspy 04:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that any consensus on WP:TV need to be followed anywhere, since they aren't in charge of TV shows. However, I do agree we need to wait till they air, and update the numbers with airing, as we do on The Simpsons. CTJF83Talk 04:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Hey can i ask you a favor to help me in family guy for a bit to make it to a GA. --Pedro J. the rookie 23:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi there, I had just added a small part in the last episode of Lost season 5. And I see that you just removed it. Well, I returned it back and I hope you kindly advice why did u remove it?.

Thank you for making Wikipedia an open place for every person on earth to participate and help. Amr.eladawy (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I read ur comment, and this is my reply

1- This is not a personal opinion, please watch the last episode. 2- It is important part as it reviles the truth about how Jacob was very much connected to all these main characters, and he was there at every important moment in their lives. 3- I think that these details are very useful to reader to understand more about the series and gives much info about the next final season.

I am waiting to ur review before removing the edit.

Thanks for using the talk page as civilized way for conversation..

Much appreciated

Compass barnstar.png The Guidance Barnstar
For your encouraging help and kind words. B.s.n. R.N.contribs 00:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar

Saw VI

Forgive my laziness as I couldn't find the source that said his full name was william easton, but I believe it is on a link similar to "Saw VI pics, Is this amanda?" on the same site i have for the pictures. As I am very inexperienced at editing movie articles, I have no problem whatsoever with you reformatting and editing my plot additions. I appreciate the message and happy editing, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JpGrB. You have new messages at Ctjf83's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your user page

An IP made some unexplained deletions to your page, which I reverted. Examining the contributions, it appears that it might have been you. If so, apologies for the revert. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 02:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


You are welcome! I had no idea that a move request had been filed. I just was like "Well, it should be in the place with the accent mark, so I will move it" - Then I checked the talk page and saw that there was a request WhisperToMe (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

cleveland show episode list

What is the reasoning that the director and writer categories shouldnt be on the main page. For quick navigation its helpful to know those, and by scanning the lists without the summaries its much easier to find. Its not like the page is lengthy and struggling to fit in extra i dont see why it shouldnt be added backGrande13 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

just scanning through all the featured lists really quickly, the majority of the ones i clicked on have director and writers on list. So just because the simpsons doesnt have it doesnt mean this cant...Grande13 (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
well i'll just add back the director/writer categories shortly unless you have an objection for some reason. Grande13 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

50 Cent Cover

50 Cent posted the cover on Twitter.

Chris Bulgin (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleveland Show

I must have came in the middle, but are you not wanting a reception section at all? CTJF83 chat 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I didn't really look over the edits the IP was doing (I will now). Do we have general receptions of the series as a whole or was it just the pilot episode? CTJF83 chat 21:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. What about all the reviews that are linked from metacritic? Those might only be based on the first episode, or the critics might have viewed a few more. (the site isn't working for me right now) CTJF83 chat 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I dunno if you feel like reading all the professional reviews, linked from metacritic or not. It doesn't appear the IP is going to engage in a discussion either. CTJF83 chat 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
So you're not into the idea of reading all the reviews, and adding more to the reception section? CTJF83 chat 21:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm kinda lazy, but maybe I'll get around to looking at the reviews, after a few more episodes air. CTJF83 chat 21:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Cleveland Show

Guys, I'm sure you both mean well, but you should know that you have both gone over the revert guideline's limit. I've locked the page for an hour so that you can hash this out on the talk page, and I'd ask that you avoid reverting each other when it opens up again. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 20:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Relapse 2

Are you a Eminem ater. why do you keep deleting the "emotionally driven " fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asid12345678 (talkcontribs) 17:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I did give a link Sir. I can give you another link from various websites. Eminem himself told that the album is more "emotionally driven" . Please dont delete the text before visiting the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asid12345678 (talkcontribs) 17:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope this makes you happy "Eminem Lover" [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asid12345678 (talkcontribs) 17:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Detox (Dr. Dre album)

If you look at the interview with The D.O.C., he says that they are "trying to be done with this record by November." That doesn't mean released by then. It means finished recording, mixing and mastering. He doesn't actually mention a release date. In the Dr. Dre interview, he states “Hopefully [he]’ll get it done at the end of this year and we can hear it next year.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieRocketPants (talkcontribs) 13:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Wallstreet Records

Hi There, This is Brandon from Black Wallstreet Records, I am trying to edit Our Page ,with Up to Date Information, and You keep reverting it ,as Vadalism.

This is Not Vandalism,It is "Up To Date". You may see from my "email address" that I am part of the BWS,and If you have any questions, Please let me know Thanks

I did not go unsourced, the source is here:

I just don't know how to add this to the references, the link shows that Eminem has finished recording Relapse 2, and that Porter has 2 tracks and Just Blaze has 4 or 5.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuKhanh (talkcontribs) 23:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 


do you have expirienxce in GAR. --Pedro J. the rookie 21:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

sctrach that, hey do you have any expirience on editing characters.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Stewie i want to get it to GA.--Pedro J. the rookie 01:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

lets try brian or peter, if thats okay.--Pedro J. the rookie 02:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

what do you say?--Pedro J. the rookie 18:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


The way it was worded, it seemed like the article was stating the track would not be on the album. I'm all for re-adding the Em and Dre collaboration with the MTV source you provided me, but without the "Norman Bates Motel" title. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 21:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's the problem I get when I skim articles. I just removed it before because the Rap-Up article didn't even state anything about the album. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 00:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Saw 7 and 8

At this moment an announcement isn't enough. They should not be added, nor articles created, until production begins, as is made clear in both Crystal and NFF. Saw VI's gross was below expectations and unlike the Olympics, World Cup or SuperBowl there is no guarantee that they will be made. Before reverting again, and mis-labelling my edits as vandalism, I suggest you talk it out. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I know what your saying, but the Saw franchise page (and six films) attract a lot of IPs who don't know the rules and putting 7 and 8 on the list for films released is misleading as they haven't been released. The Star Trek page is more patrolled, but the Saw pages aren't. I have no problem with 7 and 8 being mentioned in the future section, but they haven't been made or released, and as with any film could easily never be made (even if they have scripts). Darrenhusted (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't use tables in cast for Saw IV

Decided against what? Not using tables? What have I missed? I thought that's what the tables were for? I've read this and there's nothing against it. --Micwa (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rcool35 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Taylor Karras (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing my review from BISD? The leak is the album. THey are denying it but that is the album. I'm not trying to be a dick but I would like a real answer.Dr.deisel (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Dr. Deisel

I ran AllHipHop for 4 years before it turned to crap. I have more credibility to write about a Hip-Hop album than Rolling Stone. I understand that you may not be familiar with my site because we have recently launched, but our reviews are thorough and knowledgable. New does not equal unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.deisel (talkcontribs) 22:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


"Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc.

I am a professional music journalist. My site is not a blog. It is an online print publication with a staff. We are often first with reviews and our credibility is legitimate. My writers have written for AllHipHop, HipHopDX, XXL, Yo! Raps, The Source, and other publications in both online and print media. Dr.deisel (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Dr.deisel


Hmm, I thought Unrated Directors Cut is a proper noun? --Mike Allen talk · contribs 23:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's part of the whole name though. Honestly, I don't see where the articles even need that. It should be listed under Home media like the other FA articles. Although, this heading doesn't seem to follow MOS, yet it's a FA article. :-\ --Mike Allen talk · contribs 00:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


I came to it through imdb's news page which is the part of the site that is not user contributed. They have a list of "partners" on the side bar I guess if we knew the provenance of TVovermind (like who owns it) maybe it could be seen as RS? I say leave her in, but hidden until there is a better source, then link her out, but while she's invisible it serves to let user know that we are aware of her impending addition. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

G-Unit Records.

From what I can see he sources the information. However, the information is sourced by a non-reliable source. The way I've seen it is, YouTube videos (even if it IS the artist) are not considered sources, and neither are blogs which the sources clearly are. I've seen many pages with thisis50 as a source and it makes sense of why people think it is reliable. However, it still breaks Wiki Policies of reliable source and verifiability. In short, I'm supporting your claim. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 04:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Preview and Saw VI grade

Oh did you get a glimpse of me forgetting to add the <ref> tag (or something else)? That's what I get for having over 20 tabs open (all of the Saw wikipages, all the box office pages) at the same time and also editing multiple pages. Actually I use the userscript wikiEd -- click the lil preview icon and it automatically shows without refreshing the page. I guess I need to use it every time.

It appears now that Saw VI is the best written Saw film page, yet it's just listed as a "start class". How can we get it looked at for another potential grade? --Mike Allen talk · contribs 00:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Before I Self Destruct / 50 Cent

"Get Up" and "I Get In" are not even included on the album so how can they be given pages and called singles from this album? Look at examples such as The E.N.D. by Black Eyed Peas, where "Imma Be" and "Alive" were promo singles but are NOT included in the infobox. The infobox clearly says singles... "Get Up" and "I Get In" have never been referred to as singles and dont even have full videos etc.

I feel like your personally attached to the article and want to keep them as singles that is why my first edit to remove them was reverted without it being mentioned in the WP:edit summary (Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC))


Isn't prose making little informative sections/snippets of the content like:

Saw short

{see main article}

{small snippet of what it is}

You don't think it would look better and be more informative while staying true to its encyclopedic roots, like that? The films are already explained under "Overview" :-)--Mike Allen talk · contribs 05:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Saw franchise infobox

When I added that infobox last night (got it from here), I tried to make the header black and the fonts white, but I couldn't do it. Do you know how?

head color = Is where you put int he Hex/colors
label color = Is where you put int he Hex/colors

--Mike Allen talk · contribs 22:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Saw template

Spider-Man's template has Spider-Man 4....  :-( --Mike Allen talk · contribs 23:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You win. *sigh* --Mike Allen talk · contribs 23:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

do you now

do you now how to copy edit or clean up--Pedro J. the rookie 16:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy(passed the GA by the way) is on FAC and it needs clean up--Pedro J. the rookie 16:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


Hey, you reverted my edit at LOST. I agree that prose is better than lists, except when it's a list just written in prose format, as is the case there. Please consider putting it back Piratejosh85 (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Film navbox

It was consensus that was reached for all the Film navboxes to not include the directors/writers/cast. Let me find the exact discussion. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 23:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I found it: Clicky. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't worry about friend as I'm about to begin writing a very detailed report on his conduct, so hopefully he gets blocked for more than a couple of days. Don't forget to give him warnings, (not that he needs them, as he knows what he's doing), but so the blocking Admin can't say he hasn't been warned.  :-) --Mike Allen talk · contribs 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi JpGrB

I was just wondering why you keep deleting my entry about Meg being the Space Slug on The Something Something Something Darkside page. I watched the movie and I also listed a source. I will find another source and send it to you to see if it's reliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


1. Affiliated Labels

  • Doggystyle Records is an affiliate of Aftermath. Under the Doggystyle Records article, nearly all of teh Aftermath producers are listed, and if I'm not mistaken, Doggystyle is commonly reffered to as an affiliate of Aftermath. Just because 50 cent doesn't go: "SHADY AFTERMATH....G-G-G-G-G-UNIT, AND DOGGYSTYLE.." doesn't mean they're not affiliated.
  • I added interscope records under G-Unit and Shady because they're distributed by them.
  • I added Subsidaries to Shady/G-Unit
    • Red Head Ent. is a label founded by Bizarre. If you check out his page on wikipedia, you'll see the section dedicated to the label. On his myspace, wikipedia page, website for RED HEAD ENT. and other citations, it claims that it's a subsidary to Shady.
    • In an interview Cashis has stated that Booglish Ent. is a subsidary label of Shady
    • Sha Money just recently formed that Dream Big Ventures, and I created a page for that. Since Sha Money is co-founder of G-unit I figured that they would be affiliated labels.
    • Cashville Records was initially embraced by 50 cent as a close brotherly label to G-Unit. I don't know if that status has changed, but Y. Buck is still signed to G-Unit
    • Infamous Records IS a subsidary to G-Unit. This cannot be argued.
      • Zoo Life Ent. is a subsidary of Infamous, so it is also a subsidary of G-Unit
    • Baymaac is Spi Loc's label. If it's not a subsidary, tell me; but I'm pretty sure it is.
    • Shadyville DJ's is another close affiliate of G-Unit. There's no questions here.

So I'm going to be reverting The affiliates on Shady/Aftermath/G-Unit.

If you feel that there is a problem with one of the affiliates, simply remove that one affiliate off the list with reasonable evidence. Don't just revert the whole page. G'day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broomtherapper (talkcontribs) 19:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello there, I noticed you are a member of the Saw task force, and therefore have foreknowledge of the Saw series, making you an editor with qualifications to review an article under the scope of Saw. I hope am I not bothering your editing, but I would like to bring to your attention that List of Saw media is currently being reviewed for a possible featured list status, but there is currently a major backlog in the amount of articles waiting to be reviewed. I would like to encourage you to participate in the discussion, found here, if you are interested. If you believe I am disrupting your editing or that my message was an attempt to sway your opinions per WP:Canvas, please let me know so I may fix my methods of bringing this conversation to editors attention, I am simply trying to prevent a backlog on the WP:FLC page. Happy edits, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Sorry for putting you as inactive on the Saw task force page, but I was going through the contributions for all members and over half were not even on Wiki anymore, so I figured I would make an "active" section similar to what WP:VG did recently. Anyways, thanks for keeping up with Saw and happy edits, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Actually The-Numbers and BOM are both reliable (per WP:FILM). In that case however, the BOM would be more accurate and the one to use. --Mike Allen 19:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Saw IV

Sorry to bother you about the Saw IV page, The Numbers is a better more efficient web site of gathering all information on a database on how much film’s make, Saw IV did make $134 million, Box Office Mojo has it’s mistakes like how it originally said Saw II made $87 million in domestic and $87 million in foreign and in total it made $147 million, The Numbers has the real NUMBERS, But I think it’s onto you to choose which we should use, It’s been nice writing to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilightnewman (talkcontribs) 00:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Hi ([User talk: Daisy404/talk]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisy404 (talkcontribs) 18:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Young Buck

Young Buck isnt on Interscope anymore why are you keep on deleting the things i put for young buck this is true stuff i'm putting damnnnnnnnnn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston2beantown (talkcontribs) 20:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Up for a project?

Hey there. I was wondering if you wanted to help me (and MikeAllen if he wants to help too) on a little Saw project? I am going to be looking through the edit histories for all Saw articles and seeing what editors edit lots of Saw articles and havent joined the task force. Doing so, I am going to invite them to strengthen the wikiproject. Would you care to help? All we need to do is put the invite template on their talk pages. GroundZ3R0 002 02:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cashville Records

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cashville Records. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cashville Records (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Lost Season 6

What do you mean not an official youtube? I thought if it was official LOST season six footage it was okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekeroftruth469 (talkcontribs) 21:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem.

No problem with the IP editor. He can either heed the warnings or continue on the path he's on. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

hey dude, do you always revert good faith edits without comment, even when requested? do you even look at what you're reverting? might i suggest that you do? (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Disregard the ANI notice. He talked himself into a 1 week block. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Soulja Boy Tell 'Em discography

Please be careful of WP:3RR. I've given a formal warning to the other editor and if he's reported then an admin is going to look at your reverts too. --NeilN talk to me 19:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. As he's a sockpuppet of a blocked editor you're free to revert. I've reported the new account. --NeilN talk to me 19:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
New account has been blocked. If he shows up again exhibiting the same behaviour just report him or let me know and if I'm around I'll do it. --NeilN talk to me 20:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone reported you for edit warring

Apparently, user:UnnotableWorldFigure has reported you for edit warring at Lost (season 6) (see here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:JpGrB_reported_by_UnnotableWorldFigure_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29. This is obviously unjustified and I will post a comment in your defense. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 12:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR complaint

Please seeWP:AN3#User:JpGrB reported by UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) (Result: Semi). The changes you have been reverting, while they are mostly unsourced, don't count as vandalism under the WP:3RR policy so you must not exceed 3RR yourself when reverting them. Please let others help maintain the article, and open a Talk discussion if you think wrong information is being added. If you continue to make large numbers of reverts, you may be blocked. If you think the article is out of control, ask for help from admins. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

season 2 of Seth MacFarlane’s Cavalcade Of Cartoon Comedy

I dont believe there is or will be a second season of the show. the clip you posted under season 2 was released in 2009... here's one link for it Grande13 (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It was released to the internet in 2009, not sure who might have reposted it recently somewhere but i dont believe it was on any official channel. The show currently has one season, and its unknown if there will be any more seasonsGrande13 (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


Userpage Protection Barnstar.PNG The Userpage Shield
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page 5 albert square (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy *2#5

Dude, this is Broom.

The Aftermath and G-Unit record pages are being GROSSLY vandilized. Someone is complete raping the artist sections that you worked too hard to update.

Under G-Unit it should read:

Current: G-Unit Lloyd Banks Tony Yayo Young Buck Game Spider Loc Young Hot Rod Nyce 40 Glocc Mazzaradi Fox

Former: Olivia M.O.P Ma$e Mobb Deep

and under Aftermath:

Current: Dr. Dre Eminem 50 Cent Slim Da Mobster Hayes Game

Former: Busta Rhymes Rakim Hittman Bishop Lamont Marsia Ambrosius Stat Quo Truth Hurts Joell Ortiz G.A.G.E Eve Focus... The Firm Tiffany Villareal

Half of the names currently there are facticious, and obviously fraud. Some of these names aren't even there. It's ridiculous. Please do something, as I don't even know where to begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broomtherapper (talkcontribs) 19:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Daisy404 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisy404 (talkcontribs) 23:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Futurama revival

Hello. WikiProject Futurama is being revived. Since you are listed as a participant here, you have received this message to make sure you still are. If you like to help update the WikiProject, please discuss here. Hopefully you can stay with us and continue to work on Futurama-related articles. GamerPro64 (talk) delivered by MuZebot 06:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello there?

Are you still around? It seems like just about everyone that was active on Saw articles last year, don't fool with them anymore. :( Mike Allen 07:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Mike Allen 00:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:JpGrB/ReAl ****** PaGe and User:JpGrB/Secret page

Hi, JpGrB. In a July/August 2010 policy discussion (at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?), community consensus was that the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not prohibits secret pages. Would you tag for deletion the pages User:JpGrB/ReAl ****** PaGe and User:JpGrB/Secret page with {{db-userreq}}? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

User:JpGrB/Secret page

User:JpGrB/Secret page has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JpGrB/Secret page. Cunard (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject G-Unit Records

Wikipedia:WikiProject G-Unit Records, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject G-Unit Records and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject G-Unit Records during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk) 01:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Run albums

Category:Run albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 06:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lost (TV Series)

Sorry I reverted the Lost Tv series cast members section, I first thought you were placing them by major to minor cast members, I might have been overlooked. DisneyGirlovestacos95 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)