Jump to content

User talk:Kww/04022009: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Syphon8 (talk | contribs)
Insulting Category: new section
Line 567: Line 567:
:You see? I was going for option #3. Although I was not for both album covers being within the article. A different editor had recently added the second album cover. But having the first album cover...I feel is an enhancement to the article's readability, seeing as it is their debut album. Plus, it is in the section about the album. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 00:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
:You see? I was going for option #3. Although I was not for both album covers being within the article. A different editor had recently added the second album cover. But having the first album cover...I feel is an enhancement to the article's readability, seeing as it is their debut album. Plus, it is in the section about the album. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 00:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
:Besides that, I provided a fair-use rationale for that second use to go along with the fair use rationale for its first use. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 00:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
:Besides that, I provided a fair-use rationale for that second use to go along with the fair use rationale for its first use. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 00:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

== Insulting Category ==

WP:NP

There is nothing less insulting than being called hilarious.

Revision as of 02:33, 29 October 2008

Who needs an archive when you can just look here?Kww (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kww&oldid=244052533 here?[reply]

Thank You So Much!

A thousand thanks for you!! And I wouldn't get angry if you'd take it off..Thank you so much. You don't know how much this means to me. I can't believe it! Uhmm...what did that admins said?Kikkokalabud (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

Someone just made a single page for Scream_(Zac_Efron_song). And they made a template for him. They even put in that he will have an album soon. Could you help me nominate both for deletion? Kikkokalabud (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey the template isn't a bad idea! Why that everybody hates me on Wikipedia?

Pedrovip (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Pedrovip[reply]

Come Back To Me

I just made a new page for Come Back To Me on my sandbox. What do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kikkokalabud/Sandbox/Come_Back_To_Me_(Vanessa_Hudgens_song) Kikkokalabud (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information

I've added new information! Kikkokalabud (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finish!

I've finished it! So, what's the nexy step?!Kikkokalabud (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OKIE DOKIE!

Hey, I just half-did it. I'm just searching for a lot of informations! Kikkokalabud (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come Back To Me

Someone just made an article of that page. Unfortunately, Say Ok didn't. I just got a message on my talk page from a Bot thing and it was like "thanks for uploading those pictures" i thought there was a talk to delete that page? Kikkokalabud (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering...I found a ton of information about Come Back To Me, Say OK and Sneakernight. I wanted to put it on the album page but it would ruin the page. So I wanted to ask you if you could tell me how to make a discussion if Hudgens' singles would have their own pages since I got tons of information.Kikkokalabud (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Singles infoboxes

I'm not sure if Wikipedia was a hard guideline on this, but I'd personally go for this version as a full single infobox sort of clutters the article. Hope that was helpful. Funk Junkie (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. :-) Funk Junkie (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just come across another issue: adding single covers to album articles isn't non-fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content? Funk Junkie (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so too, but some time ago I had single covers I added to Angie Stone and India.Arie album articles deleted, and these singles didn't have their own articles, so it made me think it all over. Funk Junkie (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I think I'll use this method from now on whenever I come across cases like those. Funk Junkie (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mug_shots. Would you mind giving input? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You Me At Six

This is the first time i have edited the article, i deleted the template by mistake, but i must protest the deletion, because they are one of the biggest bands on the Uk scene, and as you can see have been nominated for awards, and this article can be improved drastically within minutes, and it is my intention to do so when i next get a chance today. DavidJJJ (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Extensiontf

The case page looks alright to me. It seems that some of the CheckUsers are a bit busy at the moment. I'm sure if you ping a CU on IRC, they'll be able to handle your request ASAP. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving

I did warn them the night beforehand; and if you checked, you will find her name has the accent in it.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) (email) 13:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re "...intrusion."

No problem - in fact it is probably a good thing to have the occasional sysop action queried so that I can ensure that my criteria is valid. It is sometimes apparent that when an admin does not care for their actions to be subject to criticism (in the proper sense) otherwise good actions get picked to pieces for not being "perfect". So, if you spot anything else don't hesitate to bring it to my attention. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undefeated (album)

Your case is a little tl;dr, which may be why some people think it's not compelling. I do agree with you though, it's a horribly b0rked article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lists and the GNG

Based on your comments, I added Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise#Proposal_A.4:_Lists_may_be_exempted_from_the_GNG, a proposal to "exempt" list-form articles from the GNG. Personally, I think they may actually be covered, but I would appreciate your comments, and it would be useful to see where consensus lies on this issue. Hiding T 16:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah/Babygirl

Aaliyah was so called Babygirl!A lot of people called her that that was one of her nicknames.Have you realised that in most of every song Timbaland did with her with his rap he says Babygirl?It's true. Marexl (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

reply

There's a lot of junk in the history, and everything's in the archives. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus

Turns out one of my friends somehow got my password and did that, not me. Sorry about that, the password has now been changed. Geoking66talk 03:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I completely agree: this is obviously an organized campaign to start a rumor. Block and protect as needed, and watch for sneaky attempts in other places. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done: must have been within seconds of your post on my page. Any idea where they are coordinating this? Antandrus (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus

Instead of deleting everyone's question about it and threatening a full pp, why don't you just post the truth on the talk page? I would think that would be easier, yeah? Cheers, Mazeau (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTB

Let's throw another sentence in there, then, which gets to the point that the character's fictional experiences are a kind of example introduction to the philosophical (and pseudoscientific) worldview which the filmmakers are advancing. Naturezak (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Her fictional experiences are offered by the filmmakers as an introduction to a philosophical worldview that combines novel, and in some cases scientifically unsupported, ideas about quantum physics and consciousness." Naturezak (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good for me! Naturezak (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock puppets.

  • HHNRecordsPR was banned from posting any more infomation on this site. Since that was everything I wanted to say, I placed my signature at the end of the comment. Also, since you are looking into the posting history, you can clearly see I placed my signature there after they were banned. Question, If I was HHNRecords, Why whould I disguise my identity if I thought I was posting the comment under the GhostDog21 user name? I know the person HHNRecordsPR, and just like me, they are not with the label either. I'm not sure why they picked that name, dumb idea. That person told me the reason they were banned was due to them having the label name in thier user name, and it seemed like they worked for the label, which is B.S. I noticed on the history of G-Unit Records and Shady Records that there are user names with the label in them, Heck, there is even an administrator with G-unit in their user name, and they make contributions to the label articles. • GhostDog21 (talk) 12:07:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needing attention

I posted about an article in dire need of attention at WPP:MUSIC. Dunno if you'd be interested in working on it but I know you as a strong editor of music-related articles. I just can't find the energy or time myself. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Hello Control's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kww please look at the talk page on Aaliyah.I left something important. Marexl (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lohan

I stand corrected. Having never violated BLP, I never needed to know... :P Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability RfC

B.6 seems like it could be a viable compromise position with some modification, so I have created a set of notes for improvement/revision (User:Vassyana/RFC notes). I'm attempting to address as many points as possible while maintaining a coherent approach and principle. I believe that I address your concerns in the notes, so I would appreciate your feedback on the notes sandbox talk page to ensure I'm on the ball. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False vandalism charges

Hi. Please note the IP removed many chart positions and even a source on V (Vanessa Hudgens album). It was the same thing on Vanessa Hudgens discography. As you can see, these edits *are* vandalisms. Therefore, my warnings against this editor are totally justified. For the sales in the U.S., I don't know if this info is true or false, but this change came from a vandal, and I've supposed it was false. As I see you have reverted my changes, I will request arbitration by a third person. Europe22 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but frankly, I have a doubt on your good faith, as, for example, you let the IP do this change, that was clearly a vandalism (= ref removed and false chart positions)... I've asked an administrator, Garion96, his opinion. Europe22 (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has added the entry positions, not the peak positions. For example, the SNEP, that compiles French singles, albums and digital charts, says "Come Back to Me" was #12 on January 2007. See this link. You can find the same information on aCharts.com (see: "Peak positions" column) and on Lescharts.com, with the same chart trajectory. However, the IP user added #15 as peak position. See : this edit. As it was probably a mistake of the IP (he has mixed up the two colums "Entry positions" and "Peak positions"), I think it was not a vandalism of his part, but changes made with good faith. And it's probably the same thing in your case. Sorry. (Nevertheless these chart positions must be corrected). Sincerely. PS: Sorry for my bad English, and if you want, I will correct the chart positions and add references! Europe22 (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For this. henriktalk 14:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I was too quick on the block button there. A second later I came to the same conclusion as you, it wasn't really malicious edits. Too often we just communicate in canned templates, without trying to talk to new editors. PS. you're doing a great job of hand-holding now. henriktalk 15:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy userpages

Regarding the userpages, if the user is making constructive edits in the encyclopedia, then I'm willing to let them have a little latitude with their user pages. The ones I get on are the ones where their only edits are to their userpage. I saw a user today who was using his user talk page as a blog, and that's explicitly covered under WP:NOT. There's another one I watch who tends to use his userpage for some kind of classroom Survivor standings page; I think one of those pages was sent to MfD. Again, it was once it got to be that he wasn't editing the encyclopedia but was here just for the tracker thing. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for warning

Hey, thanks for pointing it out. I wasn't aware that the user had already been listed at WP:AIV, and had added my warning as a last one before a block was necessary. The warning your provided stated further edits may result in a block, while the one I provided, was a last resort with will block. Additionally, it looks like the user has stopped editing so a block is not necessary. However, if any additional edits the user has are not constructive, then he would qualify for being blocked. If you see that the user does so, I'd say post it again or WP:AIV or let me know and I'll block him. Let me know if you need further clarification and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I Grow Up

Please stop deleting all the charts on the When I Grow Up page. They're all accurate and they are of importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahboyyy (talkcontribs) 18:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ok but how do you get a peak of #2 for Sweden? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahboyyy (talkcontribs) 20:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

alright i understand but how come you won't let the UWC be on the discography page or any of the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahboyyy (talkcontribs) 16:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PCD

Thanks for the heads up! I fixed it, with a Shout Out to you!! :) Ctjf83Talk 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please

Number 1, frankly, it doesn't concern you, so I would appreciate it if you would mind your own business. #2, I moved MY comment, not his. I never touched his. #3, putting comments like that happens all the time (it happened on the Main Page talk for example). You can back up whoever you want to, but please do not stick your nose in other people's business unless you are specifically asked. Thank you. Anakinjmt (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"just a hair"

Don't even worry about it, no offense taken, I understood. - eo (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, what he is doing now is unacceptable. He just reverted "When I Grow Up" again and I gave him a final. - eo (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008-present

She got to present, which is 2008. If she got to 2009 or so, it'd be altered, the same way a larger number of episodes will be added as having her participation, as well as other movies and actualizations. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?... There isn't an automatic database backing things up for anything else either, that's absurd!... What's the difference?... Like I said, as for the rest, if any other alteration is verified it shall be done. In case you don't know, Wikipedia is a continuous work!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every article in question!... If you're that lazy or undevoted!... I don't see people on IMDb complainting, they'd have gone on strike by now!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, don't ever tell me to stop. It's my trouble, not yours!... I don't complaint!... And why do you alter it yourself anyway?... Army brat!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Foreign Languages Skills

Please see WP:RSUE. Non-English references not preferred.--Startstop123 (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webkinzman

Thanks. I was about to make an ANI report but I'll see what happens with your request. Ward3001 (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on an ANI report. You might want to comment after I post it. I'll let you know when I finish. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I'm starting at AIV just to see. That would be faster. If that doesn't work I'll move it over to ANI. In the meantime, if you wish, you might give him another level 4 just so there'll be a fresher warning for the AIV folks. Thank. Ward3001 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've probably already seen, but he got a three-day block and stern warning. Thank goodness we didn't have to do ANI. Thanks for your help. Ward3001 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Lil Wayne talk page

Ehh, not sure. There seems to be some occasional legitimate discussion taking place, and the IPs have to edit somewhere, right? As long as there are people reverting the vandalism, we should be fine. GlassCobra 09:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Independent (album) AfD

I have amended your AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Independent (album) by adding a second, related article. American Side is the alleged first single off the album. I think it makes the most sense to hit both articles with one AfD. Nobody else has commented, so I don't think it alters the process. Let me know if you have any problems with this. —C.Fred (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see Kurt Shaped Box gave User:MSoldi an indefinite block tonight. I've noted that on the AfD; the article may be blatant enough information that it's speedy deletable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedrovip

I've chimed in with a comment at User talk:Pedrovip, so it appears he's accepted that user talk pages are where incoming comments from other editors should be added. —C.Fred (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Miss Independent edit

Well, I just add the correct name of the song "I'm Back"...because the song just has leaked on internet. Only it. Voices4ever (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United World Chart

I don't see how it's an unreliable chart. Let me put this in capital letters LOOK HOW MUCH OTHER UNRELIABLE CHARTS ARE ON SONG ARTICLES WHICH YOU GUYS DON'T TAKE OFF OTHER THAN THE UNITED WORLD CHART (not shouting) which is what you think is unreliable. And I don't see how it's vandalism either, and why must you intervene in my conversation with Yeahhboy. People should know how well a song does across the globe or how big of a worldwide hit it is. But I can never get through you guys, you guys just don't understand and blah, blah, blah, whatever about the dumb rules. Hometown Kid (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image policy

I left you a reply on my talk page. Please help out with the image problems for Aaliyah so you can help to restore the rest of my good faith edit, as soon as you can! :) Lliaa (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Webkinzman

Hi, thanks for the update. Sorry I didn't jump on it sooner. - eo (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 100

What parade I put????--Vitor Mazuco (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC) I know hot 100 brasil does't put,but what parade I put in brazil???--Vitor Mazuco (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Chek this link http://www.jovempanfm.com.br/paradas/50mais2007.php is the parada brasil in radio jovem pan--Vitor Mazuco (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Jovem pan is an important radio in Brasil about hit's!!!--Vitor Mazuco (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC) This radio is radio airplay!!--Vitor Mazuco (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Ok what parade I will put????--Vitor Mazuco (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You've been blocked 24 hours and I've removed your rollback rights, you can ask for them back later, for using rollback in an edit war, on Breakout (album). Rollback should only be used to rv vandalism and similar edits. Having it means you can be trusted with it and using it in an edit war is abuse of it on both counts. RlevseTalk 00:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: ANI, AIV, acronyms unite

Hey there! I'm glad we have a chance to talk, because I think you misunderstand the issue. It's not that everyone has a desire to discuss things (though I certainly prefer that route), but rather, at that time, I and another administrator did not see reasonable grounds to block Jdxboom. Some administrators probably would've issued a block, but only the trigger-happy ones. This way, we got to see if he was truly going to make an issue of this; then he was blocked. So you see, it's not an issue of too much discussion, but rather just the time which you reported him at.
P.S. Since you're blocked, it's fine if you reply here. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't understand the nature of it I guess; I glanced at the contributions list and didn't see any reason for concern. My apologies, this is truly a one-in-a-million mistake. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

my error, I missed the copyvio part, I have restored rollback, my apologies

Request handled by: RlevseTalk 00:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RlevseTalk 00:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan

I'm still skeptical about things being sourced from MySpace on this article, but that wasn't, and isn't, the fundamental issue. The issue is, as they have it, there is no source given for the statements about Lohan calling Palin homophobic and anti-environmentalist. That is a rather large WP:BLP issue. There are sources given at a later, relatively innocuous statement that Lohan criticized media coverage and urged voting for Obama. That isn't much of a WP:BLP issue. It goes much further than MySpace good or MySpace bad. It's a liability as it is in the link above. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears

Before posting a reply, just look what i said for that picture edit. I specifically said that it is temporary and should be immediately removed once a brand new picture of Britney is uploaded which is a recent one and a press cutting, not a fan-art. --"Legolas" (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

semi-Circus

I was just thinking the same thing, actually. - eo (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Ilikestella

I already gave a final this morning, plus there were several other warnings in between yours and mine. I blocked - enough is enough, really. - eo (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me about this. I knew that revealing personally identifiable information is bad, especially on a place like Wikipedia, so I used the template in question. When I saw how it was worded, I wanted to try and clear it up as best as I could. Guess it didn't make too much sense, but thanks for helping. I greatly appreciate it. :) --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 04:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soapfan06

I'm having trouble with Soapfan06 who never uses edit summaries when removing content from Britney Spears. Be on the look out. Thanks. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA nom

Go get going already. Cheers, HiDrNick! 04:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin, so as background I spent a lot of the first five-six months of 2007 "in the trenches" at AFD and I often came away not very happy about the project. I was never involved in many fiction AFDs, that I can recall. The thing about Bulbasaur is that it always seemed impossible to even find this sort of article unless you were looking for the information in it. But for reasons that I don't comprehend, these articles instill not just passion but rage. And it spilled over into this horrid war. The highly-partisan notability wars left a very bitter taste in my mouth. TTN could do no wrong. LGRdC could do no right. All the socking made me ill. I remember Jack Merridew was a nice guy to me, even helped me fix up my user page, but when it was revealed he was a sockpuppet, virtually none of the editors who had fought on Jack's side apologized to the editor who exposed the sockpuppetry. The uninvolved admin who brought it to the noticeboards was also savaged without apology, as I recall. (I seem to remember you were one of the fair-minded ones in this, but the episode illustrated to me how ridiculous the partisanship had gotten.) When I saw your name at RFA I remembered the months of bitterness. I looked through your Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk edits for the last couple months, and saw that a huge number of them were still around these issues. Mostly the RFC and TTN, true. I'll be honest, I didn't consider that the RFC is very much disengaged from the day-to-day trenches, and I think it's a fair point. But the first diff of yours I clicked on was one where Phil Sandifer said he felt like his proposal was getting a toxic reception and your one line response was that the only toxicity was coming from Phil. It looked like more of that horns-locked, bitter and unproductive partisanship to me. --JayHenry (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need help on Natalee nomination

I left the below on AuburnPilot's talk page, however he emailed me from his blackberry that his internet is down. Can you manage it? The vacancy will occur sometime between now and midnight Greenwich (I think 9 pm your time). Usually, Raul puts it in later in the day, within a couple of hours of the witching hour. I'm using a computer in a public library in England, and odds are I won't be on when it happens. If worst comes to worst, there's another vacancy when the Oct 9 article clears. Anyway, here is what I wrote him:

  • I suggest that we nominate as soon as Raul schedules October 3. For the quickest word, I suggest watching [1]here. Then replace noitulovE with the code you will find in my sandbox (there is a link at the bottom of my user page). Nominate on behalf of Kww or yourself and claim 5 points. I am in Europe right now with limited internet access or I would do it myself. If we don't, I think the Grand Prix article will be nominated and we will have to replace the fairly popular U.S.S. New Jersey, which could lead to spite opposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Norwood

I did not add a picture to her page. I only moved them around, so you are sending messages to the wrong person. As far as my talk page, you don't have any proof of any of your accusations, so stay off my page. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 01:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Sorry I got confused, it was the other way round, I've changed my position to support. Sorry for the inconvenience. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Ilikestella

Understood, but to me this is someone who clearly has no regard for any policies whatsoever and ignores any communication left on his talk page. Note he was blocked for 48 hours because of the Brazil information he kept adding to music articles, then once his block expired he went right to a discography page and added Brazil. Aside from the bunch of "got milk?" images he uploaded, his Talk Page is filled with prior image copyright problem templates. I certainly don't expect editors to have every Wikipedia policy memorized, but this editor in particular has been around for months and obviously doesn't care to at least read the page(s) about image use. - eo (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even worry about it - RfAs are tough and rather flawed in my opinion, but there ya go. We just have different approaches to how we would have handled this editor and that's fine. I just feel that it is extremely unfair when a specific editor constantly requires other people to clean up after them, especially if s/he makes no effort to learn how to do it correctly... whether they read guidelines or just reach out to someone to ask for help.
Anyhoo, if your RfA doesn't pass just take in all the comments, process it and go for it again in a few months. - eo (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTN

You should be aware that the TTN situation is being discussed at WP:Requests for Arbitration#Request for_clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.2FEpisodes_and_characters_2. So far, there is no consensus that TTN's recent behaviour is disruptive.—Kww(talk) 21:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got archived a few minutes ago. Now here.—Kww(talk) 02:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notice(s). They were informative. - jc37 09:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week. I just don't see why people continue to do that... J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist

To be honest, I haven't interacted significantly with SA for months. I get the impression his civility issues have improved a fair bit, but I honestly don't feel able to judge either. I'm sure, if there's problems, that there's plenty of people to bring them up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

You did the right thing in stating your position on sourcing. The fact that people are opposing you on this diff makes me not want to bother editing here any more, and it's certainly why I don't interact with most Wikipedians. You've got my support vote, whenever you want to try again. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 20:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC) (Death to unreferenced stuffs!)[reply]

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Hello Control's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your message

Blocked indef. As for the block, I'm pretty sure it's in effect. I'm not sure why the rangeblock finder seems to work for every block except that range. Spellcast (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I'm new to this AfD thing...thank you for your assistance! FinFangFoom (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedrovip's images

I'm inclined to agree about the images, especially the Headstrong one. The only way I can see him claiming copyright is if he did the mashup, but even then, there are underlying rights held by the label, so the image isn't usable. I think you're on the right track, giving him a few more days to see how (if) he responds. I don't remember MSoldi's edit history off the top of my head, but I certainly agree that this isn't new behaviour. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My images was only to try. I never uploaded a image. Wait, there is more. My image "Cisco Adler.jpg" is not copyrighted.

Pedrovip (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Pedrovip[reply]

I just took an image out of the Sneakernight infobox because of the copyright issue. The other two userboxes, at the time I looked, had CC images. —C.Fred (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think they're obvious copyvios, tag them for speedy deletion (I9, blatant infringement, or I3, wrong license tag). If they're borderline, send them to IfD—though it wouldn't surprise me if half of them get speedied. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A thought

Words have value in context. Please allow me to remind you of the number of supporters your RfA thread did attract. It would be easy to over-value those critical or neutral observations in this context. Your evaluation of constructive criticism needs to remain balanced. You shouldn't under-value the judgment of those who were favorably impressed. --Tenmei

Responding to your subtle and familiar choice of words in the best of all possible worlds: See this link to Bernstein's 70th birthday frolic -- Christa Ludwig sings "I am so easily assimilated." In my view, the best part of this YouTube excerpt is the enthusiastic delight of Bernstein himself at the end of the clip; and perhaps this becomes a good context in which to remind you that Candide was not at all well-received when the operetta first appeared on Broadway in 1956. --Tenmei (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holloway edit

Sorry about the result of the RFA and thanks for the gracious message.

Would you look at this diff and see if it makes sense? Dutch is Greek to me, and as I recall from the FAC (I think), this was your source.[2]--Wehwalt (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA...( altough the result this time doesnt seem good ) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA comment

Hello! As per your message on my Talk Page: "I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA." No, you did not fail -- the system failed you. And the people who picked apart isolated verbiage to create a phony history of your work have done a huge disservice to this project. There's nothing wrong with you -- keep up the great work. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

On this occasion, your request for adminship was not successful. I hope that you will continue your useful contributions to Wikipedia and may consider standing again in future. Remember, a majority of editors commenting did support your candidature. Warofdreams talk 11:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pity. I suggest that, over the next few months, you provide evidence of your ability to hold a well argued viewpoint while still being able to act impartially according to consensus. With such examples the next run at adminship should be considerably easier. Thanks for the thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds

I'm sorry it worked out that way. It is true though, that you will be more knowledgeable and experienced in 6 months time. It will also give you time to clarify how you feel about things. In any consensus based discussion, make sure all you write is firmly based in the polices and guidelines. Take time to help you users. A firebrand or zealot, however well-intentioned, is more likely to abuse the tools than someone who is patient with newbie mistakes, who looks to improve rather than delete, looks to buid/expand rather than fault find. Anyone who made it all the way through Luceifer's Hammer, and who quotes Voltaire probably has the native intelligence to learn the nuances of the mop-and-bucket cum ratchet set. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Check the quote on my user page. Definitely not the best of all possible worlds, but... the possibilities... Shenme (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I have no ambition to be an admin, or to take responsibility on WP for anything more than my own work. The points that were brought up against you struck me as unjust and downright silly in many cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve it

The Original Barnstar
For tireless work which is obviously not appreciated enough. Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: double redirect elimination

Oh, all right, that makes absolute sense. I think I came to the page through a link, so I experienced the double redirect firsthand. Next time I'll fix all incoming links to the correct capitalization, that's something I should have done anyway. If there's no incoming links, the only thing left is that the search box ATM directs you to If I Were A Boy if you enter "if i were a boy", so a reader would still drop out at the double redirect.
I kinda wonder, that's just another case where multi-redirects would be very useful if they were supported by the software. I can't imagine that implementing them in MediaWiki is that hard, or taxing …
AmaltheaTalk 11:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
Heh, yes, I know, I should have first tagged the image as a copyright violation, and then removed it from the article. It took me a little longer then with the previous image to find the copyright holder. :)
Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I followed this edit to the article yesterday and assumed that we didn't have one, since they replaced a placeholder image. Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 16:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it

Hah! Just sorry I didn't jump in when it was... you know... open. Better luck next time, as you clearly should have made it this time. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identified (Vanessa Hudgens song)

Someone just made a page of Identified (Vanessa Hudgens song) and I doubt it was real since it has no sources at all. Do you think it would be nominated for deletion?Kikkokalabud (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ControlFreak

Yep, I saw the warning you gave him. Since I had his talk page on my watchlist that's what made me saw he uploaded again images. I probably would have indef blocked him if you didn't beat me to it with that final warning. I guess this will be his final chance. Garion96 (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep on eye on that editor. Garion96 (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your taxes

Take a look at this. It clearly states that a nonresident married to a resident only has to declare Arizona-derived income. If your income is from sources outside of Arizona, it need not be reported to, or taxed by, Arizona. :-> Watery Tart (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, it's stuff like that that makes me wonder why anyone bothers to get married at all! It is simply more expensive taxwise, and 12 times the headache. Watery Tart (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubs (My Bad)

Wondering why you keep deleting this episode, considering there is no consensus and you don't have the authority to move the page. If you read the discussions on the talk page you'll realize no consensus was ever reached. Anyway this episode is notable due to the first appearance of Jordan Sullivan (a main character). I want to edit the episode, but its impossible if I have to spend half an hour trying to find it and then you delete it anyway. Tej68 (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, I don't see it. I wouldn't be surprised if this were the real deal. :) --AmaltheaTalk 02:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Blum

I woulld like to thankyou for your very fast assistance on the AfD talk page. I have left appropriate messages on Klipfontein's. Again, Thankyou--intraining Jack In 03:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting good edits!

Like u did here.
R u just reverting to get your edit count # up?
Why dont u make an actual worthy edit. 70.108.106.197 (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does, I inserted the ids myself to make sure all my old links keep working. :) --AmaltheaTalk 20:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That did the trick, although I just made it prettier. Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 20:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My Shoes

Hey! Sorry for the late reply, for some odd reason I hadn't noticed your messages before. Anyway, I'll look for sources right now. Funk Junkie (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Billboard.com, I found out that those peak positions for "My Shoes" are fake, and that "Outside Looking In" and "Jump to the Rhythm" are Jordan Pruitt's only singles to chart on Billboard to date, so I've just removed the charts table in the My Shoes article. There were also fake positions in In Love for a Day, which I promptly removed as well. Funk Junkie (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. Funk Junkie (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply.

I'm not sure RFPP is the way to go as page protection might be overkill. But I do think a "Articles for Redirect" or using AfD to discuss redirects would be good. The thing I'd want is someplace to discuss them that either the person doing the redirect or the person wanting the redirect undone could go to. As it stands the "redirector" can go to AfD (and TNN is doing that all the time) but the other side of the discussion can't do anything other than edit war. So any solution that both sides can use would be great by me. AfD isn't that, and shouldn't be used for that IMO. If it became "articles for discussion" as some have proposed that would work, but I think it needs to be something like "Articles status as delete, redirect,or keep". I'd be fine with page protection if it was needed for a redirect as long as there was a clear way to get that protection removed if it could be shown new things had happened or guidelines were otherwise met.

Good thoughts, and good discussion. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Marliesposter.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why you rejected my fair use claim. The girl is missing and presumed dead by the police. Although technically she is still a "living person", this problem seems sufficient to permit fair use of the image. The article in which the picture is used makes specific reference to the poster, as well. Or is this just a problem with me filling out forms incorrectly?—Kww(talk) 11:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reasonable fair use image, but you need to add an appropriate image tag as well. {{non-free fair use in|Marlies van der Kouwe}} will probably do it, but WP:TAGS/FU has a full list. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...I want to recreate I Want It All (High School Musical song) article in this way. May I revert the redirect and change the original article? Is it still failing WP:MUSIC#SONGS? Message back, please. Voices4ever (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did what you said...so, on High School Musical 3: Senior Year (soundtrack) I added all the informations available at the moment. Thanks. Voices4ever (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alis.Payan

I held off on whacking Rachelfan2 until the results of that Checkuser come out--and that IP last edited last night. However, I did find another possible sock based on the Camp Rock 2 non-article's history, Rachel.Lynn (talk · contribs). Blueboy96 14:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have email. Orderinchaos 15:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I decided to spike Rachelfan2 as well ... didn't see that she and Alis.Payan were the ONLY editors to that Beverly Hills article. Meatpuppetry at the very least. Blueboy96 18:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ezequiel.Pena tagged and bagged. *sigh* As far as I'm concerned, this user is banned. Blueboy96 12:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already made Camp Rock 2 (film) a protected redirect to Camp Rock, and also protected the Camp Rock 2 redirect. I'm holding off on Beverly Hills Kids and Teens for now--though I have the salt shaker ready just in case it's created again. Blueboy96 12:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14 socks confirmed--including seven we didn't know about. And the range has been hardblocked three months. Good grief ... Blueboy96 17:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, all - and thanks for bringing it to AN/I :) Orderinchaos 04:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heyheygimmesoccermeko?

The user has completely avoided talk pages, and has not edited any Nicole Wray articles, so its hard to pin down, but this certainly fits the M.O. of adding unsourced rumors to R&B singer articles, no? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for exlaining the difference between the two editors. If you need semi-protection on any articles that are frequent targets for them, let me know and I will see what I can do! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the edit history of those two articles, I would agree that it certainly passes the duck test for Soccermeko's standard pattern of behavior. I have semiprotected the articles for 1 month. If he shows up elsewhere, let me know... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Parker Impressions

If you think there is no need for impressions, then go to frank caliendo, he is a impressionist


if you watch Nicole Parker on MADtv she is a impressionist and she collaborate with characters, too me it is a insult to take someone impressions where she has performed them on the show since 2003, so i beg to keep her impressions on her page because she has done allot for MADtv and i think her impressions is one thing she does great with

Nicole Parker Impressions

If you think there is no need for impressions, then go to frank caliendo, he is a impressionist


if you watch Nicole Parker on MADtv she is a impressionist and she collaborate with characters, too me it is a insult to take someone impressions where she has performed them on the show since 2003, so i beg to keep her impressions on her page because she has done allot for MADtv and i think her impressions is one thing she does great with —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madtv12 (talkcontribs) 22:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Nicole Parker

My reason is that her impression list has been on her page for a very long time and then you decide to come in and delete it, i understand what you mean...but you are basically telling me that she as a impressionist is not as big as Frank Caliendo or Darrell Hammond.

Now she has done all her impressions on MADtv since she first came on the series, and too me it is a slap in the face...because it makes no since because you have Mo Collins, Stephnie Weir, Michael McDonald, Aries Spears, Etc who all have Impressions on there list so can you please just not focus one person when there are allot other talents...no offense but your basically saying Nicole Parker impressions are not out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madtv12 (talkcontribs) 01:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a sample

Well, that is what we can expect over the next 36 hours. At least that one was rational. Judging by my two prior TFA experiences, a lot are not. And, as I've indicated, I think Joran is pond scum, but fair is fair, if we refer to Natalee as an honors student, we have to give Joran his due. Maybe they got together to discuss their MENSA applications?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reactions of Danity Kane breakup

As I stated on the other editor's talk page who removed the fan reactions, your removal of the reactions by fans simply because they are fan opinions is unwarranted. I could see if these reactions were a lot or were not sourced, or both, and do not enhance the article, but they are not a lot, are sourced (with valid sources) and do enhance the article. Not to mention that I made sure to word the reactions in an encyclopedic manner. There is no Wikipedia policy that states such reactions cannot be included. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia, including Good and Featured articles, that have fan reaction information.

If you would rather I not include the exact quotes, and instead relay what fans thought in my own wording, like I did with a bit of the reaction some fans have had to Dawn Angelique Richard in regards to the Danity Kane's breakup, then I am fine with that. But information on what fans think is absolutely allowed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on my talk page, okay, I cut it down, and did not use the exact quotes. Flyer22 (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise

Clean Barnstar You deserve it... It's the barnstar for your help that you gave to me and other ones! Pedrovip 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

That message in my talk page, really meaned a lot to me!

Pedrovip (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Pedrovip[reply]

.

What templates actually do? editprotected was because a user was posting M. + M. are gay. It is vandalism. Pedrovip (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Pedrovip[reply]

How many time is a user blocked

I wanna now, if i will be blocked, how many time? I already seen a user blocked 24 hours, and another 1 week. But what is the real deal? Pedrovip (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Pedrovip[reply]

It depends on the scenario; if the account is made only for vandalism, it will be blocked indefinitely. If it's a long-time abuser, like the Grawp mob, it will be blocked on sight. There are also short-term blocks for disruption or for compromised accounts. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Geniusdream

We have both resolved the war in editing, we have agreed already about the issue and I'll be working on the article, Sarah Geronimo for about 2-3 days to find references and re-edit the article as we have agreed. --Geniusdream (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed weird

But the bot seems to work now. All is good. --harej 00:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Geniusdream

I dunno, it could be him, since the anons just kept on reverting my revisions to the ones by the fanboy. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia's Not, "Not a Forum"

I'm posting here. This doesn't belong on the main page if I'm going to discuss my specific case, but you're a good detective. Thanks for paying attention. You saw what spurred my interest in this particular topic of discussion. The user in question who edited my remarks in a talk page has been a very busy beaver. I know he's asked my permission subsequently to edit my remarks, but I'm not so certain he's ever found it necessary in previous cases.

His overbearing edits made me curious. Upon examining the edit history of changes he's made attributed to "not a forum" (which are numerous) very many of which are on talk pages and some user pages. I do not have the experience to determine how justified these edits are. All I can say is that they had the effect of scaring me and shocking me.

In one case, he had gone into a user's space that was being used to work on a Wikipedia page and took away the entire page. Again, I am not knowledgeable enough in these matters to say how this could have been justified. All I can say is that I cannot see how someone could ever be justified going into someone's personal workspace that is being used to work on a Wikipedia page, summarize "not a forum" and take out all of that person's work. I'm not actually complaining at this point, I am just absolutely bewildered about this situation. --VictorC (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Ahh... okay, I should have assumed there was history there. I was in the States the whole time, but I assumed since it basically became an international incident, nearly leading to trade sanctions, etc., that most informed Europeans would be aware of it. I saw on his user page that he was from Spain and thought he possibly just wasn't aware of the significance of the whole Holloway story. Thanks for the heads up. I'll just steer clear. --JayHenry (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from --Geniusdream (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that, its just that others are just vandalizing the page, like editors that are only IP addresses and furthermore, when others revert the article, the references provided will be disregarded.

--Geniusdream (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on identity of user

See: this dif's edit summary and this dif's edit summary. The account dates to 2006, so it might not be who I think it is, but the grammar seems quite, um, familiar? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. SM's grammar is marked by a failure to grasp verb tenses and the proper use of auxiliaries. This is more tough-boy gang slang. I wish we only had one bad editor with bad grammar to deal with, but there's an unfortunately large quantity.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Anyhoo, later... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of album covers -- Danity Kane article

If album covers can only be used in articles about the albums, then why would Wikipedia have these options when you upload an album cover?

Options:

How will the album/single cover be used in Wikipedia?

  • in an infobox about the album/single.
  • in a header at the top of the article about the album/single.
  • in a section devoted to the album/single.
  • in an article about the album/single's artist, used to identify the artist's work.
  • for some other use.
You see? I was going for option #3. Although I was not for both album covers being within the article. A different editor had recently added the second album cover. But having the first album cover...I feel is an enhancement to the article's readability, seeing as it is their debut album. Plus, it is in the section about the album. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that, I provided a fair-use rationale for that second use to go along with the fair use rationale for its first use. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting Category

WP:NP

There is nothing less insulting than being called hilarious.