User talk:Hello Control

Attention: Unless otherwise requested I will answer messages here on my talk page to keep conversations together in one block, it is my hope this will make it easier for others to read them.

Hello, Hello Control, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Record labels.

I understand, and thank you for pointing it out. But I did not see that as a policy mentioned anywhere on WP:ALBUMS. I was also going by, as I said in my edit summary, what we've always done regarding "Aftermath"/"G-Unit"/"Interscope"/"Shady". As I said, this is just me, going by other editors. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know if it's in WP:ALBUMS, though it probably should be. That part of my edit summary was in reference to bolding the album title in the chronology part of the infobox. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my apologizes then. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • No sweat—just trying to spread the knowledge. Peace! —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't just leave things alone

Yeah, I went ahead and added the source for the image, dip slice.LoveLaced (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Dip slice"? I don't even know what the hell that means. But thanks for taking care of business. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Well it's funny that you criticize others for not looking up sources, yet your first instinct is just "DELETE EVERYTHING!!" instead of looking for one to add to complete to article.LoveLaced (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I marked it as missing a source and notified the uploader (in this instance, you). How do I know where the uploader got it from? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Would it kill you to look it up and complete the page instead of having everything deleted? That would seem to be the more appropriate thing. And it wouldn't come across as spiteful. I see now that you're going through my editing history, looking for more incorrect things to have deleted. Can't let go of the fact that you couldn't get Sunday Love deleted or what? -LoveLaced (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Again, I ask you—exactly how am I supposed to know where you got the image from? If I was trying to be spiteful, I wouldn't have bothered to notify you on your talk page that the image had been tagged, nor tagged the caption in the article. Please try to assume good faith. I have most assuredly not looked through your editing history—I have far better things to do. If you check my edit history, you'll find that edits even remotely connected to you are a tiny percentage of my edits. So you see, this persecution complex of yours is quite unfounded. Do you think that every time someone takes issue with your image tagging that they have some ulterior motive? If so, judging by comments left on your talk page, there are quite a few people who have axes to grind with you. Also, as I've stated before—yes, I nominated Sunday Love for deletion but the sources found by other editors (that you couldn't be bothered to find) clearly show the album meets notability for albums. Remember that not everyone takes things as personally as you do. Also, you might want to brush up on WP:OWN: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly..., do not submit it" and "If you do not want your ideas... challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them." —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Nice. Real nice. "how am I supposed to know where you got the image from?" Are you implying that it's too much trouble to google the image, or even go to amazon.com where it would faster, replace the image and put down the source? You would rather have it deleted than try to contribute to completing the information and make Wikipedia better, not less informative. How can I assume "good faith" when you do that and then go through all of my edits and have all the ones deleted that lack a source? And I have no bones to pick with anyone else because they aren't delete happy. I made mistakes when I first joined the site and that's my fault for not reading all of the regulations regarding non-free content and sourcing, which were corrected for the most part. But it was not by the same person going through everything I've done. If I went through all of the articles for deletion you've been a part of and voted to keep them, that would seem personal, wouldn't it? I also love how you keep stating I couldn't bother to find notable sources for the Sunday Love page when except for a couple of sources that were added citing people that worked on production, I found and put every other source on that page. However, I can see by the comments on your page, a lot of people have problems with your edits/deletions, much more than me alone. -LoveLaced (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
            • Let me get this straight—you're mad because I didn't do the work that you should have done, right? Also, as I said before, I have not gone through your edits to find images you uploaded. The Eve's Plum one I came upon after clicking though from somewhere else into their article. I had no idea you had uploaded it until I went to leave the uploader notice. If anything, YOU should be going through your own edits and fixing any images that need it. But I guess you just expect other people to do that for you. Don't worry too much about any negative comments that have been left here—there's always at least one unhappy editor when something gets deleted. I don't think anyone else has ever felt persecuted by me, though, so I guess that makes you special. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Red Cafe

Regarding this, and several other music-related AfD's, prods, etc., I feel I should point out two sections from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD:

1. Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy (WP:DEL), which explains valid grounds for deletion. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.
2. When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good-faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.

In the case of Red Cafe, the artist has a substantial biography at Allmusic, as well as a discography listing 2 albums, with a lot of hits from both Google and Google news searches. Please ensure that your "good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist" includes searching Allmusic and Google in the future, so that articles that can be improved to demonstrate notability are not unnecessarily subject to deletion discussions. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Inclusion at Allmusic does not impart notability. None of his actual albums have been released (I tried like the dickens but can find nothing to indicate that Toshiba actually released I Got a Story to Tell). I'm sorry if it bothers you that your interpretation of the guidelines, etc. differs from mine but that is the nature of WIkipedia. I guess you haven't noticed the articles that I've added references to, showing notability. That's OK. But please don't mischaracterize my nomination—I said nothing about sourcing concerns. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion at Allmusic alone would not impart notability, but a substantial biography at Allmusic plus any other significant coverage in a reliable source would constitute notability, which is why I would recommend checking allmusic when there is a concern over notability, since the primary consideration for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. I saw the Toshiba album for sale in an online shop (although I can't find it now), and the Co-op album has certainly been released and reviewed (almost all of the tracks are by DJ Envy and Red Cafe, one of which was issued as a single, so I think this qualifies as an album rather than the usual (various artists with a bit of rapping over the top) mixtapes). Irrespective of album releases, he clearly passes WP:MUSIC on coverage.--Michig (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Toshiba album is listed on Amazon.co.jp but with only minimal information, which usually indicates the album was solicited by the label but not released (for an example, see One Chance's album Private on Amazon.com). I couldn't find it listed anywhere that was actually selling it. Co-op was called a mixtape at most of the places I looked at, including the Allmusic review. I hadn't questioned whether that album had been released—it obviously has. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Concept album

Hello. I haven't had much time today but I've had a quick look at the Concept album and I agree it's a mess of WP:OR at the moment. I'm guessing that most of the refs are just articles about particular albums where they are described as 'concept albums', although I haven't had time to check them out. I'll take a closer look over the next couple of days.--Michig (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• That's cool—no rush. That was my appraisal of the refs as well. I hate to think it needs an almost total rewrite; just gathering good sources will be daunting. Thanks for taking the time to have a look. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a scrap job to me, too. A ton of OR tied together by reviews that called individual works "concept albums". I'll keep this one in my. If you look at my contribs over the last few days, you'll be able to figure out my recent task: 170 references to the UWC website down, another 340 to go. Then I'll be able to get started on the ones without references.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ick. I've recently been deleting UWC and BULs that I've come across in my travels but not hunting them down; bless you. I haven't been watching to see if they're being re-added though—gotta cut back on my Wiki-overtime. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Chad B AFD

Can you back up the claim it's a gossip blog reprinting a press release? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Responded at the AfD. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

United World Chart

Had to brag a bit somewhere. It will take a few days for the servers' search indices to catch up, but, for at least for a few minutes, the entire article space is free of the strings "United World Chart", and no article contains "UWC" and "chart". Don't think it will last for long.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Somebody buy that man a drink! —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: userspace

well, I just don't feel completely comfortable deleting stuff like that. But I will do it because you are most likely right. Sorry for the trouble. Thingg^⊕⊗ 00:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, that's cool. If you do it, that's great; if not, that's fine, too. You're the one with tools, after all. Peace —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't vandalize teh Francesco Barbaro page

You are reverting valid and sourced information. Stop doing that! You are vadalizing the page- go read the link for yourself!