User talk:STATicVapor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:STATicVerseatide)
Jump to: navigation, search


Your GA nomination of Sanctified (song)[edit]

The article Sanctified (song) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Sanctified (song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DepressedPer -- DepressedPer (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Owner[edit]

You need to stop changing the ownership section of WWE, the McMahon Family is the owners because of there class B shares they hold togetherTorrian2014 (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Torrian2014: There is one owner, and that is Vince. He bought the company from his dad in the 70s and he is the majority owner of the stock. I am not sure where are you getting the 96% from, I do not see that anywhere. You keep changing it to your own WP:OR and that will be reverted. STATic message me! 01:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You can report me all you want the bottom lime is that the content you are putting is misleading, and that's the bottom line — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torrian2014 (talkcontribs) 02:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ed Sheeran – X mixed reviews[edit]

The Independent, Time Out and The Big Issue are all reliable, published sources – they are not small, unknown publications with low readerships; and definitely not WP:OR. Negative reviews by such publications which Metacritic hasn't taken into consideration shouldn't be ignored. If those negative reviews were from personal blogs etc then you would have a point about WP:OR, but that's not the case. I hope you can see the point I'm making. 87.81.143.227 (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic says reviews have been generally positive and now the article states the same thing. Just because the were some negative reviews, does not make the reviews generally mixed, unless you have a source for that it is WP:OR. You must not understand original research, so visit the link. STATic message me! 05:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You've entirely missed the point. Metacritic says reviews have been generally positive, but it has only included a few mixed/negative reviews – there are many others by well known outlets and publications. Also, of the 19 reviews chosen by Metacritic, nine – or 47% – are listed as "mixed". I haven't reverted your changes, since it's accurate to say "Metacritic says reviews have been positive" while listing the many negative reviews not taken into account by MC. Also, your assertion that I "must not understand original research" and instructing me to visit the link is hugely patronising; I already did read the link, hence my prior quoting of "reliable, published sources". You must not understand how to be less condescending, so take time to learn. 87.81.143.227 (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You (Busta Rhymes song)[edit]

Hi. Thank you for reverting my edits on the song "Thank You" by Busta Rhymes, but here's my explanation of why you reverted my edits: on the single cover of the song, it said "FEAT. KANYE WEST, LIL WAYNE & Q-TIP", not "FEAT. Q-TIP, LIL WAYNE & KANYE WEST". And also, E.L.E. 2 is still an upcoming album, so it has not been released yet. The track listing should have been okay when I put it there, and the part "(2014)" that you put back on the article is really unnecessary. It should also say that it "features additional vocals from fellow rappers Kanye West, Lil Wayne and Q-Tip" and also "released as a single on November 7, 2013, from his upcoming tenth studio album E.L.E.2 (Extinction Level Event 2)." The track listing for the digital download format should have also been alright with you since you put it out. Skylar3214 11:04, 14 July 2014

@Skylar3214: Well you should have said that, however do not change "and" to "&", it is not proper encyclopedia writing to use the symbol. As for ELE2 being upcoming, it does not really need to be said. I added the track listing back as you know. Go ahead and throw the release date info back in, but it should be its own sentence, not awkwardly lumped into the first sentence. STATic message me! 06:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Should I put the release date in another sentence? Skylar3214 11:29, 14 July 2014
@Skylar3214: Not in another sentence, it should be its own sentence, along with the format of release. STATic message me! 15:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I saw what you put on the article. It's really perfect. Thanks, man. I would have done it myself, but I was away for a couple hours. ;) Skylar3214 10:38, 15 July 2014

Mike Will Made-It[edit]

I noticed you removed my changes to Mike Will Made-It. This morning Mike Will made a post on Instagram saying he will be releasing a new mixtape titled "Ransom". I don't understand how that's not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudface (talkcontribs) 06:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Claudface: You did not cite the post, or better yet a reliable news source. Also you did not format the addition right, copy the format of the previous mixtape's listing and change the relevant entries. STATic message me! 15:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion[edit]

Hello Static,

I noticed you added the Speedy deletion tab to the Yung Stet artist page. I totally respect your opinion but I was wondering more in detail of why Yung Stet page was decided to be placed as unimportant artist? I noticed it was also reviewed by one of the Master editors also whom didn't place it for deletion. Its tagged with some great artist background information that shows importance for this artist/songwriter to be added. He has received major awareness from well known major brands and artists. His social media accounts including twitter are verified also. I was just curious because I reviewed other artists pages that didn't have as much background info as this page. Once again I am just curious of your decision. (Topdog2014 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC))

@Topdog2014: At this point in time it looks like Yung Stet does not meet the notability creteria of WP:MUSICBIO. If you would like to have a copy to work on in your sandbox, ask the administrator that reviewed and deleted the page if they could userfy it for you. I will give you credit, you did write a pretty good article, but at this point it looks like he is just not there yet. STATic message me! 21:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Northstar[edit]

Why did you revert my Northstar edit? You're wrong. They weren't able to reattach it. Read the news... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyrgd (talkcontribs) 18:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You did not cite your edit with a reliable source, that is why. STATic message me! 18:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Money in the Bank (2011) peer review[edit]

Hi STATic, due to your experience in editing professional wrestling related articles (and other experience for GAs), I'd like to invite you to comment on the peer review for Money in the Bank (2011), which I have an interest to eventually push for Featured Article status. Thank you very much. starship.paint ~ regal 09:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

Hi, it's me, THX4,444. I am sorry for that.But it's okay now. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by THX4,444 (talkcontribs) 01:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Azealia Banks[edit]

Hello, I've seen your message about making changes on Azealia Banks' Wikipedia, but only shortly after I've edited it again. I'm very sorry that I bothered you, it won't happen again. I'm a proof fan of Azealia & I just wanted to make updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RANDYLAMONT (talkcontribs) 23:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@RANDYLAMONT: No worries, since the article is about a living person and genres cannot by WP:OR, just be prepared to cite reliable sources. Also the labels she has been signed to will always be listed in the infobox, no matter if she is or is not currently a artist for that record label. 00:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Summerslam 2014[edit]

You claim that there was not a credible source attached to my link. That link showed a Vimeo video that is a preview that shows that John Cena will be wrestling Brock Lesnar for the title at Summerslam. The final frame of the video shows that the commercial is from MTS, which is a Canadian PPV provider. The Vimeo video looks professionally made and has recent footage of Wrestlemania and Cena winning the title for a 15th time.

Here is the link to the Vimeo video: http://vimeo.com/100854216 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmack79 (talkcontribs) 00:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dmack79: A reliable source needs to be provided for verification not a copyright violation video. For PPVs, we usually wait for WWE to announce it publicly. Just taking it from the poster would be WP:OR. STATic message me! 00:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

My edit to Brick Mansions[edit]

Hi, thanks for posting on my talk page. The reason I changed it to negative reception is because the film only received 26% on Rotten Tomatoes and most of the reviews are pretty negative of the film. I doesn't make sense to have it as mixed since the reviews are generally negative.XKid3202 (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@XKid3202: That is just your original research of the reception. Rotton Tomatoes does not call 26 percent approval negative, so you cannot take that as negative. Metacritic supports saying that it received "generally mixed reviews", so that is why we say mixed. STATic message me! 03:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No. What you are saying is also just original research of the reception. Just because one site states the it received generally mixed reviews doesn't make it so. Metacritic only takes a limited number of reviews and if you look at the majority of reviews for the film you will see that the majority of them are negative.XKid3202 (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@XKid3202: Well I guess you just do not understand what original research is, try taking a look at WP:OR. That one site is the source, and you have no source for saying it received generally negative. Metacritic takes only the most notable reviewers, while Rotton Tomatoes includes every Joe Schmoe that writes for a random blog. Either way, RT does not call the reviews generally negative. STATic message me! 04:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit to List of Wu-Tang Clan Affiliates[edit]

Hey, just a quick question. You reverted my edit to the article based on a good faith assumption. I didn't do it in good faith and did my research instead. Although there are no definitive sources on the web, there are sources in the world. :-) The best source I could provide was the interview I posted, also there are some tracks on youtube, one of them featuring Bomshot & Holocaust, Ghostface Killah and Straight. Also, a member of the German chapter is a co-worker of mine. (He asked me whether I could do the edit.) Before doing so, I made him show me the contract, which in fact exists and seems legit.

Of course, you are way more important to this project than me and more experienced with all this, too. So I can only ask, whether you want to look into the this yourself. Anyways, keep up the good work and have a nice weekend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Action Boo (talkcontribs) 10:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion[edit]

Hi, I don't like to bad mouth people but User:ShawnMichaels11223344 has been nothing short of an nuisance since they have started editing wrestling articles making bad punctuation edits adding unofficial artwork/taglines amongst other things, what do you think the best outcome should be? Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lukejordan02: If they continue for a long time WP:ANI would be an option, but not at this point. They have already received two warnings this month, so if keep adding unsourced content warn them, or notify me and I will warn them. STATic message me! 01:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
OK thank you for the advice, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Drake infobox[edit]

I've launched a discussion at the talk page, which you should have been notified of, but I wanted to say a few more things here on your talk page aside from that discussion. While I think it was perfectly fine to revert my changes per WP:BRD, I would be very careful with leaving edit summaries like the one you left, which imply that discussion is a necessity for any change, no matter how seemingly uncontroversial. I'm not completely sure if that's what you meant, but the implication seems to go against WP:BOLD. I personally wasn't offended, but you might scare off other editors who may be newer or less familiar with Wikipedia and just want to make contributions with such edit summaries.

Also, other changes were made to the infobox outside of the mere change of type, such as a new image that showed the subject more clearly and the removal of an excessive laundry list of "associated acts" that mostly have no significance to the artist's career, and it would have been helpful if you explained why these were changed, in your edit summary or elsewhere. No hard feelings, just wanted to let you know. Cheers, –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: I was doing the revert on the base of WP:BRD, there was no problem with making a bold change, it is just that infobox changes should be discussed. As for the changes, feel free to change the image back, I personally felt that one looked much better, but another reason for the revert was you removing the associated acts. The limited amount ones that were listed have been very significant to Drake's career as someone who follows it would know and they all met the guideline. If I do not jump in that discussion immediately, it is because I want to see what others think. STATic message me! 16:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Babymetal article[edit]

Hi there, I know you are often busy but on a certain article I need you expertise. Several Wikipedians have been editing in against template guidelines and have been formatting against them, and while I have been following these templates and guidelines I just keep getting my work reverted simply because they disagree, they don't reference any reason why they just disagree and while I would have back up on any other page this particular page is watched by what appears to be many fans and want it in a particular way that is not in accordance to Wikipedia and I may have snapped one or two times just trying to justify my edits so I am coming to you for some help, even if somehow my edits are wrong it would be great to hear from you since you're a professional so your opinion is of great value. I hope you help us with your better knowledge one way or another. SilentDan297 talk 09:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@SilentDan297: No problem, glad to help you SilentDan297. Instead of me combing through the talk page, could you detail in what sections are these edit conflicts are taking place? Just from a quick view it looks like there are way to many genres and the discography has some weird format. STATic message me! 16:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, the current discussion is taking place here: Talk:Babymetal#Once again justifying my edits - SilentDan297. Apologies for the mass amount of text but I kinda lost it after being reverted many times before, I went through the trouble of replying to every point he made against me after he/she replied so the discussion looks incredibly disorganised, thank you for your help though it is very much appreciated! SilentDan297 talk 16:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Since this argument I have calmed down I started another discussion with a much better structure here: Talk:Babymetal#Fresh discussion, hopefully you can still contribute since we are waiting for the opinions of others before we make any more edits, thank you for your time. We are currently discussing;
    • What genres should be in the infobox and what should be removed.
    • What details should be mentioned in the Members section, more specifically whether their birth dates would be mentioned here and the roles of the two younger singers.
    • The layout of the discography and how it should be presented.
Again thank you for your time and hope to hear from you on the talk page. SilentDan297 talk 09:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the lag man, I was about two-three days behind on my watchlist and I was trying to get the majority of it done. I'll comment there now. STATic message me! 09:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

808s & Heartbreak[edit]

Nah cuz, I was removing the persons edit but you did it before me but it was still showing up as hip hop/rap when I saw it. HackneyE8 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Breathe Carolina[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to ask you (you are one of the most notable editors in Breathe Carolina's page) if you think that would be more appropiate to change electronicore instead of post-hardcore because their post-hardcore sound is heavily influences by electronica, electropop and that kind of stuff. What do you think? Thanks! :) Justasaddream (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Danagog[edit]

Hello Static,

Trust you're having a great day, I noticed you placed a Speedy Deletion Tag on article Danagog. I have gone through the criteria and the article in question has independent references and also speaks of an artiste with direct affiliations with one of the foremost record-labels in Nigeria, also this artiste has been on rotation on both local and international TV & Radio stations, a comparison with peer artistes also shows that similar references were provided. It turns out these still didn't meet your criteria, kindly make the article available for further editing in order to further conform to the stated criteria.

Many thanks

@Damilae: Danagog is not notable. Just because he's a member of Davido's HKN Gang doesn't make him notable. B-Red and Sina Rambo are not notable as well. Please do no try creating articles for these artists. Versace1608 (Talk) 19:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fragile (Tech N9ne song)[edit]

The article Fragile (Tech N9ne song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Fragile (Tech N9ne song) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DepressedPer -- DepressedPer (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ludaversal[edit]

Look, I looked up like 6 links, producers and read several articles to edit that Ludacris album because of it's lead single that's supposedly dropping soon. You don't have to be a total jerk and say "good to know you can copy paste". I didn't copy paste anything, I restored the old information from 2 years ago and added everything i could find to make it relevant to present time. I get it, you think I ruin every hip hop article. Why don't you take 5 seconds out of your day to relax/understand and stop belittling everyone. BlaccCrab (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@BlaccCrab: Okay? The album still does not meet WP:NALBUM, if you would like me to restore it and AFD it I would be glad to. I get that you got mad you were blocked for your disruptive editing again, but do not waste your time ranting on my talk page, it won't help anything. After all the uncivil remarks and insults you have made towards me, you are not the one to complaining about anyone else's behavior. STATic message me! 10:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)