User talk:Momo san/Archive 4

Messages go here, put new messages on the bottom. Sign your comments using four ~~~~. Thank you

Query regarding IP talk page format

Hello. Could you help me understand your reasoning for edits like this to IP talk pages? The layout used appears to be at odds with the standardized format recommended at WP:UTM and WP:UW. Thank you for your time, — Kralizec! (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the way I have done it is if there are old messages on an IP talk page from like years ago, i'll clean it up and put the {{older}} tag on it. I never knew that you could just have an archive box on the page and link back to it. although the "older" template says that the old warnings and notices are in the page history, they could just go in there. If you want, I can revert back to the other version. I can do that right now. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong per se with the way you have been doing it, however the method recommended at WP:UTM/WP:UM is widely accepted because a lot of people worked hard to build a robust, consensus-driven solution for the issue at hand. Personally I do not care for {{older}} because it is just a redirect to the standardized {{s/wnote}} that is supposed to be substituted anyway. Likewise, when archiving old warnings into the page history, it is recommended that you leave a link (hence why I use {{Archive box collapsible}}, like here). Speaking as an admin who processes AIV requests on a daily basis, while I do not follow the recommended format to a "T" (I think the numbered layout takes too much time so I skip it, likewise I put the "Warnings" header at a level-one section instead of the suggested level-two), the standardized format does serve the needs of me and other blocking admins quite well. Please let me know if you have any issues or questions, and thanks again for your time and consideration. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

re:Page protection

Thanks for requesting a full protection as it was needed at the moment. I am not sure how long the dispute may continue, but it looks like we have lots of Jackson fans who regardless what his true sales represents want to see their favorite artist at the top of the list.--Harout72 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

remember Wikipedia, is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit it does not belong to you

please just listen to what i have to say

if you read Thugs-n-Harmony section in best selling artist Harout72 says articles published by major record companies such as Sony Music are acceptable but for michael jackson its different why is this