User talk:Abrazame: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:21, 8 May 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Abrazame, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 18:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your welcome! Those links I've had a chance to check out so far are very informative and thought-provoking; some support what I intuited, others are shaping my understanding of this site. I look forward to exploring them all in their entirety. I value the resource of Wikipedia, and hope that my contributions benefit others who do as well, in their accuracy, truth, detail, and appropriateness. I appreciate your invitation to seek your counsel, and may well take you up on it! Thanks again. Abrazame 13:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Young

Because Forever Young is a disambiguation page, I merely cut it down to a list of articles with the same name. —tregoweth (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Drn - red titles.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Drn - red titles.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Drn - red titles.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Drn - red titles.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Branigan sol12.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Branigan sol12.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had included a rationale in the File Summary, but apparently only computers decide these things. All the more reason the issue of something as simple as an album cover should be a simple, all-purpose template and the bots called off their scent. Don't you remember reading encyclopedias and textbooks when you were a kid? Ideally every page features a photograph, diagram or other image of the subject; studies show that both initial understanding and memory recall are greatly aided when visual elements accompany text or speech. Given the visual nature of the internet, pages without images are old-fashioned, dull throwbacks to the internet's early days, or the days when color printing was too expensive and so not in common practice in newspapers and books. So often substandard info appears throughout the web accompanied by splashy photos; it is a public service to associate the accurate info at Wiki with a similar image(s). Abrazame (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a-ha

i've tried to search on their album and i can't se that the album has been certified. And if this is true please give me some sources. The discography is nominated list so i don't want any unclear facts okay. I hope this is okay with you. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You where right. sorry. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're right i've checked it out on the BPI. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is, if you want to you can help me with the a-ha and it's related articles. Mostly the a-ha page, the discography and their debut album. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Actually, I already have done some editing to the main a-ha article, you can review my work by clicking the "history" tab and selecting my edit on the right and the previous version below it on the left and clicking "Compare selected versions" (sorry if you already know that, I know you're new and while much is self-evident, I know it took me awhile to figure out certain things, and there are still things I'm just discovering). I've got to go now, but tomorrow I'll give the debut album page a look. If you have anything in particular you'd like some help with or some input on, feel free to continue this conversation here or, once you've alerted me, on the talk page of the article in question, otherwise I'll give it a general clean-up as I did with the main a-ha article, and we can discuss any major changes. Great to have you as an interested and knowledgeable editor involved in the a-ha pages! Talk soon. Abrazame (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May need some help on Scoundrel Days and later i'm going to work Stay on These Roads and East of the Sun, West of the Moon okay. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Love Is Reason" didn't have a music video and yes i agree with you. Now i'm talking about your comment. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on Hunting High and Low. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me find a reliable source for a-ha sales number. I need it for the a-ha discography. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to consider, is that even thoguh let's say Hunting High and Low was released in 1985, it has sold also after that. No one here is gonna tell me that the album has'nt sold in the USA after it's got its innitial certification in 85 / 86. So the 1 million number should be taken with a pinch of salt. Same with the UK and all other countries. Old albums continue to sell, as new albums are released. To base discography on the innitial certifications the got amny, many years ago is silly.

Their first 3 albums has also been released as a 3 pack. That is also something to take into consideration.

Also much of the sales go through such channels as Amazon and Play. does these sales get registered ?

Mortyman (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do Mortyman. --193.69.95.44 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i'll stop swearing, but Mortyman gets on my nerves and doesn't seem to get the point. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Living Daylights Soundtrack

Should sales of the soundtrack including a-ha's contribution here be added to the discography ?

How does this work ?

a-ha has also had their songs feautured on other soundtracks and compilations.

Mortyman (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a-ha

I would appreciate it if someone could add these soundtracks to the discography, as I'm not the best at it...:

James Bond - The Living Daylights - Includes the theme song written and composed by a-ha

Corky Romano Soundtrack - Includes " Take On Me " by a-ha

One Night at McCool's [SOUNDTRACK] ( 2001 ) - Includes the song " Velvet " by a-ha

Grosse Pointe Blank (Volume 2) (1997 Film) [SOUNDTRACK] - includes the song " Take On Me " by a-ha

Unfortunetly I don't have any chart information on these.

Mortyman (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make Some Noise: The Amnesty International Campaign to Save Darfur

This compilation for this cause includes John Lennon's " #9 Dream " performed by a-ha

The cover has not been released anywhere else.

Should also proabably be added.

Mortyman (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Covers

a-ha's song has been covered by many artists. Should these also be added to the Discography ?

Mortyman (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a-ha sales number

Just press the number 17 next to the sales number and then press pandora. I don't get it. its there. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/12093/20031013-0000/www.ssn.flinders.edu.au/scanlink/nornotes/vol4/articles/a-ha.htm. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New source for Hunting high and low sales number http://www.puls.no/1049.html. The other one is older then the Norwegian one. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question do you doubt the sales numbers? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gay icon

Sorry that you continue to have a problem with Anita Bryant's inclusion in this article. But whether she meant to or not, she waas one of the catalysts for gay emancipation.

Perhaps you are not aware, but I was the one who singlehandedly saved this article from deletion. It was a couple of paragraphs without a single reference. It's not as if I am trying to harm the article by including her, but rather trying to balance the article and term.

Consensus seems to be that she remain, and we do have refs from the NYTimes as well as the one from ladies Home Journal of which you were dismissive. Best, Jeffpw (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cashbox singles charts

I just made the changes from Cashbox Top 100 singles to Cashbox Top 100 number-one singles for the years 1971, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1991. --Sd-100 (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cher disco

The comment you had placed on the talk page for the Cher discography kinda weird. Why, well most of it is mostly vandalisme. Why, well thats easy most discography which are not C, B, A or a FL have mostly incorrect information and their are now good reasons for having the sales number their, it doesn't have source which means someone just made it up. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite surprised you would say that. You have been waging your own struggle to wrestle the a-ha discography away from fans who persist in adding outrageously inflated, fan-page-sourced sales numbers. You have previously been banned from Wikipedia due to sockpuppetry, as you have been editing the a-ha discography and other pages using more than one account and then using several accounts to vote on your work there. Your single-minded obsession with trying to get the a-ha numbers under control (which I applaud in its objective, if not in its methods) caused you to attack one well-meaning interested party on his talk page, calling him a jackass and using profanity. Why would you make such a major attempt at getting the numbers within reason at a-ha (and keeping them there) and then object to me weighing in on the Cher discography, pointing out the disclaimer and source of a website that was cited for those figures? I'm not clear on the point in your last sentence...you are saying you're aware that most Wiki discography sales numbers are made up, yet you think we should allow such fan-fabricated numbers in discographies in this encyclopedia anyway?

If most of my comment strikes you as vandalism, perhaps you would educate me on which parts you're referring to and why? Abrazame (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you see i deleted the a-ha sales number for a while back. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you see, you didn't answer my question, or give any reasons to support your accusation. You apparently don't see that I was supporting much of your work at a-ha. I know you deleted the a-ha sales numbers (the last batch following your first comment here), that's part of what I refer to in my post above. I don't see why you aren't supporting my point at Cher, since it's pretty much the same as your point at a-ha. Abrazame (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying your idea is bad but i said you should delete those sales figures. If the certifications was wrong/vandalised its the same with the sales numbers. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See

See this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Chart data a discussion about how many charts should be in a discography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gabriel discography

Hello, Abrazame. I was impressed with the work you did on this page a few months back, but unfortunately the same person was back recently, trying to alter the chart peak positions to their liking. One was from the IP address and one was from the logged in user Jman505, but since both were done within three minutes, I'm pretty confident they are the same person. I reverted both the edits and also alerted user JaGa, with whom I had corresponded about this back in June. But since you put so much effort into this article, I wanted you to know as well. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-Platinum

I don't need a lecture from you about what makes a responsible editor. As I've said to you, this has been brought up to the project in the past. I'm not going to drop to my hands and knees and beg other members to get involved in a discussion. It was there on the discussion page, and still is to my knowledge, for anybody to see. I'm looking at this link you've provided and the multi prefix is used in a number of places. If you have such an issue with the use of the multi prefix, then by all means, take it to the project. You cannot, however, call my usage of it incorrect with the RIAA does in fact use it. So, as I said, get a consensus from the project. I'll happily abide by it. The RIAA database uses the multi-prefix while listing certifications for multiple platinum albums or singles. You consider it erroneous and redundant, get a consensus to back you up. Otherwise, my usage of the prefix isn't incorrect. Dislike it all you want, but my editing record speaks for itself. I've always abided by consensus, I follow policy, I don't purposely disrupt articles with various forms of vandalism. If you think you're right, then get a consensus to side with you. Until that happens, however, your opinion is just that, your opinion.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Marx template

Hi ! I understand your concern. I've simply gathered the templates and I've organized them in alphabetical order. Feel free to put them as you want. PS: Sorry for my bad English ! Cheers, Europe22 (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK)

Hi mate, Thanks for your message. You're free to do the copy-editing now - I was just responding to a few comments on the FL review page. Cheers for your help. 03md (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copy-editing the article. 03md (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you've put looks great and I will not change it - you've got the essence of what I was trying to explain in the article and the reference clarifies these points. Thanks. 03md (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Thanks for leaving the message on the List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK) talk page. I have successfully reverted the page back to the last FL version. Thanks again for all your help in getting it to FL status. 03md (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JANET!

An amusing comic of me done by my good friend "Ace", based on our real life experience of attending the GLAAD Media Awards. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily I was smart enough not to leap off the balcony in real life, so there was no hospitalization. I did frighten a few other patrons by screaming JANET! at the top of my lungs when she came on stage though. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cher

new details on the talk page. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lip-Syncing

Some of the research I did for Janet Jackson on the subject brought up a few interesting points (see: Janet_Jackson#Choreography). Basically, for modern artists who have the ability (thanks to technology) to layer their voice throughout a song, and for those who turn concerts into a "blockbuster film", lip-syncing becomes a necessity, unlike artists who remain predominately motionless throughout a performance. Quite possibly my favorite quote of all time has to be "[e]ven a classically trained vocalist would be hard-pressed to maintain any sort of level of volume—or, more appropriately, "Control"—while bounding up and down stairs and whipping limbs in unnatural directions at impeccable, breakneck speed." While Cher, Madonna and Janet may be performing their own stunts, its unlikely a vocalist/instrumentalist such as Alicia Keys would ever require lip-syncing. And as for Britney Spears...well I think a review by Erika Montalvo & Jackie Sheppard (UWIRE) said it best:

“

Some may argue that Spears is not only a good recording artist but also an important cultural icon. Although she has been classified among female elites such as Janet Jackson and Madonna, what does Ms. Spears really have in common with these divas of rock?

Jackson, who started her career with Jackson Five and even spent some time on the television series "Different Strokes," not only had the style and moves of rock star royalty, but also incorporated life struggles along with serious world issues into her music. Her tune evolved along with her maturity, and touched millions of fans on a deeper level-addressing an issue and successfully executing the message to her audience.

Madonna, who in her early years can be quoted saying, "I'm going to rule the world," on American Bandstand, far surpassed everyone's expectations. With her constant "on the edge" demeanor, pushing the envelope of what is socially acceptable and what is not, she ignited the wildfire of a female sexual revolution for more than two decades. Madonna's unique expression sometimes hit and sometimes missed, but her name is now a token of immortality as she still holds the title of supreme female rock star in the palm of her hand.

Nineteen-year-old Spears, however, has big shoes to fill if she intends on being remembered as one of the greats. While Jackson and Madonna wrote their own music about subjects of importance, Spears' music sounds like an upbeat version of either, "I want to grow up but the media won't let me," or "Here kitty, kitty, I'm wearing my underwear outside of my leather pants"-type ballads. A solid contradiction of the message she is supposedly trying to convey. Tracks on her new album "Britney" include sulkily-clad titles such as "Lonely," "Not A Girl Not Yet A Woman," and "Overprotected," that are enough to perplex a dry-heave from even those musically --challenged. Most girls on the verge of 20 are concerned about college degrees, jobs, independence or even starting families. Not whining about being a real-life Cinderella.

”

— Erika Montalvo & Jackie Sheppard , UWIRE (2001)

The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: rant

Thank you for the compliments, I didn't think u were just reopening it, I looked at the guys talk and contribs and thought "nutjob" so I just went ahead and archived it. I figured you'd missed it since the edits were so close together so it's all good. :) Soxwon (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Personal Attacks at "Photo Agenda" section of Obama Discussion. Thin Ice.

Please don't personally attack other editors as "lunatics" and "lusting" just because you don't like them. That is unprofessional. Here is the bottom line. You think it fine and normal for Obama to be shown only with Republican senators and never with A Democrat one. You think that is totally normal. I questioned that. You then attacked me in a very rude fashion. Guess what? it's not normal to depict Obama only with Rep senators. I never insulted you - despite your insults and the easy access you gave to such route in your lack of being able to get the fundamental point that 100% is not balanced. You can learn a good lesson from my conduct with you and I hope you try to emulate it in the future. Please be civilized in your discourses. JohnHistory (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]

Laura Branigan

On allmusic it says both the singles Gloria 2004 and Self Control 2004 were released by Dance Street, obviously making them unoffical. Link Do you know if this is true and if so should I remove them. I am asking because Self Control 2004 was already listed in the article before I edited it. Dell9300 (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Biden allegations...

As someone who's been tangentially involved with a certain editor, I just wanted to thank you for your post here. The Sartorialist (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your saying so! Yeah, I don't think what he brings to Wikipedia can be contained in the term "editor". I think I'd call him a found-object abstract expressionist with some tendencies toward an ironic Rayonism, the way he develops negative images by projecting carefully selected snippets and adding sharp, striking jabs of yellow with bold red tops over all that ominous black background. Barbarians, we, to expect verisimilitude from such a soul.

Checked out your namesake's bio and coveted his loose-weave linen shirt! Some great shots on his site. Ah, to be in Paris in the spring! Abrazame (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaa-wing! Not! Who let the dogs out!

Hi - Thank you for your patience; I'm still getting the hang of a lot of this. I'm glad to have been made aware of some policies that I was not previously aware of; the reason I deleted the Covers section was because I felt that it was just too long, poorly organized, and, well, unnecessary. Do we truly need a full list of everyone who has ever covered a Rick James song? No, in my opinion; think of how many people have covered The Beatles. Why not just give them all their own article if it matters so much?

If you feel that my ruling in this matter is unjust by Wikipedia standards, fine, you're the one with editing seniority. I still stand by my own personal opinion, however, and will continue to edit articles as I see fit. The great thing about Wikipedia is that if you don't like someone else's work, it's totally within your rights/power to change it. Hence, if I want to change something about an article that I feel is unnecessary, I have every right to do so, and you have just as much right to say that I'm wrong and change it back.

Your fellow philosopher, 62 Misfit (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Colonies

Thank you for the additional information that you added! I am currently trying to get it reviewed for GA, so your contributions are appreciated. I would like to thank you especially for adding references to your edits, as most people add loads of information without any references. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I made any information inaccurate, and thank you for your research into the subject! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People who look like Barack Obama

Hi. The reason I added Obama to that category is because there was only one other person in it, and a category looks kind of silly with only one article in it. But I trust your judgement, so I won't put it back. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bea Arthur

I want to cry, but I can't. She was too magnificent for tears. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. I agree, those clips are awesome. I'm sorry for your losses and we will all mourn The Queen Bea. Now everytime I watch The Golden Girls I'm gonna kick myself in the ass for not being able to have met her. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Arthur

Please dont misquote what the sources actually say. We include in our articles what can be verified in sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more Beatrice Arthur

Let's not be snarky, let's be editors, who query things with Red Pencil if it's above or below their pay grade to check the fact themselves. I find your edit summary more snarky than mine, especially the "pay grade" bit, and you're assuming quite a lot. As a matter of fact, I did try to determine whether Josh Rotters was qualified to speak on behalf of the entire gay community in the lead section of this article, and although I found his name and his viewpoint on various websites, there was nothing that I could find that established the kind of credentials required for such an attribution. Maybe I missed something crucial, but I looked carefully enough to feel confident that I did not. I didn't see the necessity to ask Red Pencil, and I still don't. There's nothing snarky in noting that someone who lacks the notability for a Wikipedia article should not be cited in a such a high profile manner in this particular article. I also don't think that because I remove something from an article because I believe it to be inappropriate, it is automatically my responsibility to replace it with a more acceptable equivalent. You've done that, and perhaps better than I would have or could have. In any case, if you objected to my edit or my edit summary, it would have been more courteous to discuss it directly with me, rather than making an edit summary that is specifically and obviously aimed at me. My edit summary was about the edit. Your edit summary was about the editor.

But yes, let's be editors. I think it was right of you to remove the essentially bland and empty statements of McClanahan and White, but with the same rationale, I can't see much value in the "cherished friendship" part of Barbeau's quote. Only the first part of the quote is about Arthur's work, and even that is a little vague. Betty White's comment about feeling hurt, though bland, at least seemed sincere and human. Rossrs (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rossrs, though I don't recall precisely where, I recognize your name from other edits I have come across which I have appreciated and respected. That comment was not fundamentally directed at you. Have you checked the edit summary for that article? Red Pencil somethingorother had put in a few snarky and/or downright insipid edits prior to yours. It was his edit that changed the generic attribution that Arthur was a gay icon to the specific attribution that Rotters had dubbed her thus, last Wednesday or so. In other words, Red Pencil presumably knew Rotters was not particularly notable, and instead of behaving like an editor, he specified this fairly non-notable person in Arthur's article.

When I wrote "...query things with Red Pencil", I didn't mean you should ask that editor, I meant that that editor should behave more like a real editor and wield that pencil more thoughtfully. Red Pencil (or pen) is in these edits acting like a snarky middle-school teacher, simply slashing and lashing coldly about with that pencil. The bit about the pay grade refers to the real-world publishing echelons in that if someone marking a manuscript is low on the rungs, they're not entitled to make an ultimate decision themselves, and so they merely query it (place a cite tag) so someone with more responsibility can determine whether to check it or change it; when an editor is an executive type, they may mark it so a lower assistant can do the fact-checking and get back to them. My point was, here on Wikipedia, ideally we are egalitarian, and neither too feeble nor too lofty to take the time and effort to make an edit that enriches the article, as opposed to simply striking things out. Real editors aren't trolling articles to put big red "C"s and "X"s all over things; if we find an obvious error, we make a correction. If we doubt a fact, why, we're sitting at a computer and can do a quick scan of a ref or make a quick Google search almost as quickly as we can do what Red Pencil did.

If Red Pencil had made that quick scan of the ref, he would have discovered that it wasn't Rotters that dubbed Arthur a gay icon in his article, Rotters was referring to an interview Arthur had done with Out Magazine which referred to her as such. Of course, if you had made the same quick scan, you might have discovered that crucial point too. I think the onus was more on Red Pencil, given that the statement had simply declared she was a gay icon, and it was Red who put Rotters' name in there. You then came along and thought, "who the hell is Rotters to be quoted in an article?" Which is somewhat understandable, but then, that's precisely why I take issue with Red's choice.

Still, the ref was there, and the ref ought to have been enough, Rotters citing Out Magazine. I did not add the gay icon bit to the article, but while we're on the subject, the "entire (whatever) community" doesn't have to agree on something to make it so. It only takes a small segment of the American community to vote for a president, and once he (or she) is elected, not everybody falls in line, yet at the end of the day that one person is the president. It only takes a segment of the gay community to decide someone is an icon of theirs, and each segment can have more than one at a time. It's more like the House of Representatives. (And most people can't even name their Congressperson, much less vote for them.) The Rotters of the world, particularly when they are citing more notable sources, do then speak for that segment.

I didn't mean to dismiss sincerity and humanity. I do hope you check edit summaries to determine which editors are slapping tags and which are trying to respond to them. (I would direct you to Red Pencil's 4/29 skirmish over whether the Broadway marquee-dimming could be said to have actually happened.) As far as I'm concerned, an article can and should include a little sincerity and humanity, even if it's ultimately not wholly notable or substantive, in the period after a person's death. I had no problem with those statements remaining in the article temporarily, and realized they would be edited down or removed, but I saw no reason not to leave them in for a respectful period of time. Again, it was Red Pen of Doom that thought Betty White should put a sock in it, not me. I'd be quite happy if you, I, or some other editor could find a way to put some sincerity and humanity back in the article that is worth fighting against bloodless red lines. I recall hearing Arthur's fellow Tony winner for Mame, Angela Lansbury, making a statement to the effect that a certain era of Broadway seemed to have passed along with Arthur. I'd say that with Lansbury, Elaine Stritch and Julie Andrews still kicking, that's not at all so, but perhaps there is a warmer yet still substantive, notable quote we could find? Again, it was the "memorial" cite tag I was responding to with my comment about "sadness", not a personal reaction to the quotes.

Finally, respectfully, one point I would take issue with you over is that if something isn't appropriate for the lead (but may be appropriate for somewhere further down in the article), it seems the responsible thing to do is not to delete it entirely, but to reposition it in a more appropriate section or, if a quick scan of the article can't determine one, cutting and pasting it to the talk page and requesting that someone more interested and involved in the article do so. While a glance at a few recent edits can be helpful to prevent misunderstandings like yours here, it shouldn't be a requisite to discover any potentially relevant bits of an article which are swirling into the past and detectable only there. Abrazame (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for the very thoughtful reply. I read it earlier but didn't have time to respond, and thank you also for the heads-up on my talk page. No hard feelings on my part either, by the way. I don't disagree with anything you've said, and I'm pleased that the air has been cleared. I'm glad it was a misunderstanding, rather than a genuine disagreement. After reading your comments, I think it's fair to say that you and I may approach things from a different angle, but ultimately our attitudes are similar. I think there is a time and place for adding "cite needed" tags etc, and they serve a purpose, but I think there are some editors that make a career of it, and I find that process counterproductive. The aim should be to build and repair, not demolish and corrupt. I've been thinking about it today, and I must confess that I was irritated to see the gay icon comment made in the lead section, not because I disagreeed with it - she's one of the more logical "candidates" - but by the haphazard way it was slapped on, which has unfortunately been the case with a lot of articles. (I have an issue with the word "icon" alone, although if given context as "gay icon", I understand and accept that. That's another story though) If I'd been less irritated by it, I may well have spent some more time on it, because I don't usually go about deleting things without a purpose.

That brings me to your final point, and I welcome your taking issue with it, because it's given me an opportunity to think about why I do the things I do. I agree that the responsible thing is to fix it, within reason, but that to remove it, is not necessarily irresponsible. I do remove things if I think they should be removed, fix them or improve them if I think I know what's needed, and question or comment on the talk pages if I feel it necessary. It's a matter of judgement on a case-by-case issue. In this particular case, I took exception to Josh Rotters, so I mentally removed him, and was left with a basic comment "Bea Arthur is a gay icon". True enough, but in that form it was meaningless and without context and the site that it was linked to didn't give anything to make it less so. So now, I saw a meaningless unsupported statement, slapped carelessly into the lead section where it did not belong and where it was not explained further in the article. It also occurred to me that before that was added, the article was satisfactory (although like most articles not polished or complete) so that removing it was more or less restoring it to its previously acceptable standard. By the time I'd done it, the article was no better or worse than it had been before, although in my opinion it was better to have no information than to have the information poorly and inadequately given. As I said, it's a question of individual judgement and choice, but I understand what you mean, and agree. On reflection, I realize that if I'd left a note on the talk page, it would have been more constructive.

As for the tribute comments : it's possible that more time should pass before someone gives an accurate assessment of Bea Arthur, that is not rooted in sentiment and emotion. At the moment friends and colleagues are paying tribute and expressing their sorrow. All of which is valid, and for the time being we should pick the best and the most relevant, if we are to include any. It may be that somewhere in the future, someone of consequence will be asked a question about great comedic timing or stage presence or ... whatever.... and reply with something like ... "Well, there was Bea Arthur. She was........ " Rossrs (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:StanMarsh19

I just thought I would give you a heads up, that StanMarsh19 is continuing to change CD/song release history dates without a reliable source that you warned him about a little over a month ago. I would appreciate any help you could give me dealing with this user. Aspects (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

What you wrote about the use of the photo at Violence against LGBT persons was one of the most cogent and compelling comments I have read in my time as a WP editor. It didn't do the trick, unfortunately, but at least the decision was to keep the image. Your remarks certainly must have cemented consensus on that. Rivertorch (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farrah

Gosh, thanks. :) I thought she needed some sprucing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of George W. Bush

I think you may have made a mistake by attributing an edit to me as a "clear POV violation." I was not the original editor and merely reverted an unsourced edit. QueenofBattle (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Back to you one last time at my talk page, and then I am done with this inane conversation. QueenofBattle (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be of interest

You may wish to consider this possible oncoming debate. Point 3 in particular. --Jazzeur (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

- and more Rossrs (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pravda

Good Grief!!! Is your name Charlie Brown? Pravda ( means Truth and Yes) has the acumen to know what is down the road for the sheeple in the USA. Obviously, if you don't like an opinion, you see fit to delete it. It is an opinion, which is where i placed it. I hope you are a contributor besides a deleter, but I doubt it....not only are you an invalidator, but you are very naive. I will reinsert it in a years' time, and we'll see who was more correct: you or Pravda. Denial is not a river in Egypt. Perhaps you should take basic economics and re-evaluate realty.

Furtive admirer (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Disapproval

Thank you for getting the numbers more exact for me. I knew I was close, but not right on. (Rustydangerfield (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Presidency of Barack Obama: Economy

Hello, Abrazame. I've replaced old Gallup poll with the new one simply to make Wikipedia more up to date. Approval ratings of politicians are not constant values, so informations about them simply need to be renewed. I don't know why you object to it? Regards. Ammon86 (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main page errors

Can be reported at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors (also available at Talk:Main Page). I've gone ahead and moved your correction there, an admin should see it and fix it shortly. Thanks! --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Yes, I've noticed that at some hours of the day/night, admin attention is a little slow on that page. It will probably be dealt with soon enough in the Grand Scheme of Things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watergate

I just corrected the Watergate error. Correcting the Main Page requires an administrator (in fact, they made me administrator for that purpose, not to police arguments). Therefore, reporting such errors to WP:ERRORS (at the top of the Main Page's talk page) is exactly the right thing to do. That is the purpose of WP:ERRORS. Thank you! Art LaPella (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the inputs

A quick note to say thanks for providing sane and well reasoned inputs on the RfC on the Gun violence page. When I attempted to implement the early consensus, I was blocked for 48 hours, despite never violating 3RR, for "edit warring". Nonetheless, I wanted to say thanks for caring enough to comment. I have also re-opened the RfC there that was closed while I was blocked and unable to comment. Yaf (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox II

Two quibbles about one edit: "The bill, which includes ... is being distributed over the course of several years...." doesn't seem quite right to me. The bill itself isn't being distributed, its spending (or maybe its stimulative effects) are distributed. And, the sentence is present tense whereas the rest of the section is past tense. I think you had a stylistic direction going, so rather than changing it myself I thought I'd invite you to consider improvements. I liked all your other edits. CouldOughta (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, you're absolutely correct. I was able to fix it with a simple change of the placement of the word "which", and replacing the word "bill" with the word "act". The bill, once it was voted for and passed, became an act. The act and (most importantly) the spending is ongoing. To tense, that goes to my point that the spending has not already happened, but is ongoing, and in fact will be ongoing for a period of time longer than Obama's first term; it has really only just begin from a percentage standpoint. To look at it in another way, we could justifiably write about it in future tense, as most of the money will be spent in 2010, though even then it will not have ended.

In writing this post, I've experimented at the Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox with changing the link to "economic stimulus package" in the first sentence, which used to be to the ARRA, and now links to a disambiguation page for Stimulus that includes Bush's 2008 stimulus and the 2009 European and Chinese stimulus plans as well as general discussions of the term in both its fiscal and physiological senses. Interestingly, "economic stimulus package" links to a small page suggesting only "Fiscal policy" and the ARRA, while "stimulus package" links to the disambig page inclusive of all the other stimulus packages (which I added there some time ago). Ordinarily disambig pages are considered inferior to a full article, but in this instance I think it's helpful to see it alongside context from the previous administration and the rest of the world, especially as there is no article called "Stimulus (economic)" or "stimulus bill", despite their appearances on the page (the first redirects to "Fiscal policy", the second to ARRA). I've unhidden the full title of the act and substituted it for the word "act" in the sentence in question. If you have any thoughts or better ideas on this, or a grammatically preferable way of indicating the ongoing and future spending which is the point of the act, I'm certainly open to discussion. Thanks, gotta run now but I'm rarely away for more than 24 hours! As I said, I would like to work on the auto paragraph and the sections below it, but if you wanted to add the stuff we agree on, then move forward with the rest later in the week, that would be fine by me. Abrazame (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, now I don't like it because to some it might read as though the ARRA is not the same as the $787 billion package. Abrazame (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I spelled out ARRA in the first sentence, kept the link to the other stimulus packages and restored "act" (instead of "bill") to the later sentence. Abrazame (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Abrazame, I lost track of who I was waiting for for what. Let me know when you make North Korea edits. CouldOughta (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redmond ONeal

As it turns out I am in an earlier time zone, and I'll be happy to look at it a little later (I don't have enough time at the moment but later in the day I will). My immediate reaction is it probably deserves to be deleted, but I'll have a closer look later. So you can turn in. :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (-) Abrazame (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's done. I found some time to look at it, and I think you're absolutely right, so I've nominated it for deletion. I don't think the article has any potential beyond sensation and scandal, and if he turns around and makes something of his life, that will be the time for an article to be written about him. While we're talking, I want to commend you for watching Farrah's article and keeping it free of nonsense. I also hope that her memory is well served, and I thank you for doing your best in that regard. One of the sadder aspects of her death was that she had to say goodbye to her son by phone. I can't imagine how painful that must have been for her. Rossrs (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the talk page, no, there's isn't anywhere for you to monitor. If the original editor removes the prod notice, it can still go to WP:AFD - an example of this is Melodiebabi which is currently listed on AFD and which was first tagged with prod (which was removed by the original editor). I have Redmond O'Neal watchlisted too. Rossrs (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says that anyone can remove the prod tag, so I guess it's OK for an anon to do it, although it doesn't actually demand good faith. It seems like a pretty flawed process if it can be done without discussion and without even disputing the statement of the editor who added the prod tag, but I can't find anything to say it's wrong. I have listed it now for deletion, so please make a comment there. I think it's pretty clear case. Another editor commented at Talk:Redmond O'Neal that we don't have an article on Joey Luft, although we have articles for both his parents, (and those of his siblings that have achieved independent notability). I think Redmond is a similar case, and we have no articles for Patrick or Griffin, but obviously we do for Tatum because she has actually done something notable. I would hope that the two boys would need to do more than be arrested on a narcotics charge, to qualify for an article. We'll see what happens. It will stay on AFD for at least a week, so by the end of that time, it should have attracted some comment, and I also think that on a wider scale, Redmond will have slipped back into obscurity by then. Rossrs (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have checked more carefully; Griffin O'Neal has a (terrible) article, and Patrick O'Neal (sportscaster) has one too. I think a redirect would work for Redmond, but to which parent? A redirect may even work for Griffin, but he's notable more for his involvement in a high profile death, than for his parents, although in his case, Ryan O'Neal is clearly the more notable parent. The place to question the removal of prod tags without explanation, has been asked at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#When removal is not contesting and the short answer seems to be that at the minimum, an edit summary is required. In any case, it's at AFD now, so I think it should run its course. I also agree that an anon who is knowledgeable enough to add categories is probably aware of a lot of things, but the prod tag as it appeared in the article did say it could be removed, so the anon may have been acting in good faith. Rossrs (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farrah Fawcett

Actually, since the Hugh Hefner quote is in a separate paragraph from the Kate Jackson quote, it actually does need its own citation. However, and no disrespect to Farrah, the quotes about her death fairly are tributes and some people would question their inclusion, fwiw. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling singles worldwide

Hey, I'm sorry I don't really have the time to contribute that much to that article. I just fix broken links, spelling mistakes, citation errors, etc. Mostly I'm a fixer. I add to math/physics/film articles though. So sorry. --Curtdbz (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sotomayor nomination article

Thank you so much for cleaning up some of the wording that I had added to the article in the Day 2 section. I really hope that you are also planning to revise the next two sections of hearings, as well, and further help the wording and structure of the description of the hearings, as your recent contribution was extremely helpful. Thanks. Gage (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your saying so. I've done some clean-up on the Day 3 section and if I have time I hope to do some more in the next day or two. Best, Abrazame (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks again for your contributions. I had been hoping someone would help me in cleaning up the article. Gage (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those seven words

Hi, I was noticing that Carlin had been linked in the Cher article and was about to link those seven words to the article about the routine when I discovered you had reverted the link to Carlin. Before going ahead with my link, I wanted to understand why you reverted. Clearly Cher meant for the public to think those words, as emphasis to her point of how livid she was. That point is only made, however, if someone knows the routine. The very next paragraph links to "Senator Hillary Clinton" (who, not incidentally, is not currently a Senator, and should probably simply be referred to simply by name and not by title) and "Barack Obama", even though these two individuals are far more self-evident without the link than Carlin or the routine. I thought the point was to link to things that illuminate the meaning of the text so as to avoid having to spell things out. The routine in question, even more than Carlin himself, strikes me as an eminently pertinent link. Abrazame (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I delinked it because, per WP:BTW, we should normally not be wikilinking things inside of quotes, and it's even dodgier to link something within a parenthetical note inside a quote such as in that particular case. That's the reason. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you didn't respond to my point about salience, shall I presume you have no objection to a copyedit changing the non-essential text? I'm thinking changing

She was about to offer her thoughts on this, but stopped, saying, "I don't know what you can say on your program, so I won't talk the way I normally talk." Implying her comments would be salty, she did add, though, "I don't like it...it rubs me the wrong way. And if I could say all those seven words [that George Carlin's famous routine suggests cannot be said on TV], that's what I'd be saying."

to

She was about to offer her thoughts on this, but stopped, saying, "I don't know what you can say on your program, so I won't talk the way I normally talk. I don't like it...it rubs me the wrong way. And if I could say all those seven words," referring to George Carlin's infamous Seven dirty words routine about profane language, "that's what I'd be saying."

This actually shortens the overall passage while being more specific. (I could have shortened that by saying it's more concise!) Both examples interrupt her quote to interject, but the second one does so with a direct reference rather than an editorial interpretation—and it does so without making the point of her comment parenthetical. Finally, Cher herself in the current version of that very quote is stating that she "normally talk(s)" with precisely that sort of blunt, raw language, so this isn't introducing an element into the article that is uncharacteristic of its subject outside of this context.

P.S. How do you feel about removing the "Senator" from "Hillary Clinton", as she is now Secretary of State, and there is neither a "Senator" nor a "President" in the mention of "Barack Obama" a few words later? Abrazame (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, we know that she is probably referring to Carlin's seven dirty words, the real truth is that we're assigning her intent without any actual support, so I'm not even sure we should be interpreting her intention. I'm a bit concerned, now that I look more closely at the three paragraphs about this interview. I notice they aren't even sourced, so I'm wondering if the quotes are even accurate.

As for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, a point could be made that at the time she supported Clinton's bid for President, she was factually Senator Clinton and Obama was not elected. I think it's accurate either way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say "a point could be made that at the time she supported Clinton's bid for President, she was factually Senator Clinton and Obama was not elected," yet at the time Cher threw her support to Obama, he, too, was factually Senator Obama. Now neither is a Senator. Yet she is qualified as a Senator and his name stands alone with no qualifier. Either the sentence is being told from a the perspective of that time looking forward, in which case they would both be termed Senators, as they both were then, or it is being told from the perspective of this time looking backward, in which case neither would be termed Senator, as neither is now—or both of them would be termed "then-Senator". It seems a straightforward case of inconsistency of usage.

To the central point, I don't understand the "probably". Taking the quotes at face value, Cher is unquestionably making the point that she is holding back from using profanity. Yes? The passage in the article since May 2006 attributes her mention of "those seven words" to Carlin's routine. Yes? If you think it's an exceptional or dubious statement that Cher was nearly moved to profanity on the air by the presidency of George W. Bush, then perhaps you should research it or slap a cite tag. But I feel like I'm getting resistance from you on clarifying what the section professes as long as it's in the article, which perplexes me. If it's untrue that she said this, then I agree it should not be there. If it's true that she said this, then clearly "those seven words" aren't the names of dwarves, they're profanity—as the article already states. If she used the word "profanity" I wouldn't be suggesting we link to a list of curse words, as profanity is a common and presumably translatable word. However, "those seven words" is a bit more oblique, particularly for someone whose adolescence came after the 1970s, while at the same time a cultural touchstone, and calls out for an explanatory link to the relevant article. I'm not the person who added that bit, and I'm not trying to add to it, or expound away from the quote, I'm just trying to improve our presentation of that quote. There are two whole sections with cite ref tags a year and a half old. I'm not the type of person who goes around tagging or removing tagged material I don't find contradictory, extraordinary or dubious, but I do occasionally copy-edit similarly clumsy passages and link notable people, cultural references or in-jokes that may be obvious to you and I but not universally so. If you want to slap on a tag and give this bit the 19 months and counting the others have gotten, that's fine by me, but in the meantime I think it's incumbent upon us to clarify what the section purports to inform the reader about. As I've pointed out, my change will be less editorially interpretive and more direct and informative than what is currently there. Do you disagree with that assessment?

Am I reading something into your response that isn't there? (Or that is?) Because what is there doesn't seem to constitute an actual issue with the point of my edit, yet I'm sensing that if you weren't objecting, in a shifting manner, you'd have said "go for it" or suggested an even better fix if you perceived one. Again, even if it is eventually tagged, I don't see how improving the structure is objectionable. I have noticed some Wikipedians scrambling to prop up poorly sourced and non-notable slapdash recentist articles nominated for AfDs and thought, gee, they're wasting their time, it doesn't stand a chance. This has stood for 38 months. (Incidentally, after I wrote this, I thought, let me just research the damn thing, but I erroneously thought the quote was from a Larry King show, so I've been poring over transcripts of Cher on his program! And having a few good laughs. Noting my mistake, so far as I can tell, online archives for all but a few select Ed Schultz shows are by subscription only.) Abrazame (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine

It's really not a big deal. I wasn't sure if the Henry Louis Gates arrest was already discussed on the article's talk page (which is rather long to wade through). Although I wouldn't consider the event to be involved in any sort of lunacy or conspiracy theory, if you believe that it is not notable enough for the article, then perhaps you're right that it doesn't deserve its own "see also" section. It's one of those things that, eight years from now (granted that Obama gets elected again in 2012), people won't really care about or remember too well anyway. Unless, of course, Gates gets arrested again! Lol. Take care.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100

My comments have been entered. I support changing the AfD to an RfC. We need to discuss the fate of this article in more detail. --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 05:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hermaphrodite

Please don't delete the section from Lady Gaga, it is very important because it changed the public view of her drastically. Please edit, do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricky9981 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it changed your view of her so drastically that the version you initially wrote in the article stated that she had admitted to this. Seconds later you reverted to say she denied it. What do you think you're doing, breaking news here? I advise you that before you edit, you need to read a few reliable sources (including Wiki policy on having those sources for exceptional statements just like this one) and understand the breadth and context of an issue to see if it's really fit for article inclusion. You also might note whether there is a talk page discussion about the very issue you're about to edit—as there amply has been, for weeks. Being bold doesn't mean you dive into an empty pool while others are shouting and waving at you. Nor does it mean throwing the article subject headfirst into that empty pool and asking questions later.

To your point, that reading an untrue rumor about a person can drastically change an impressionable person's view of someone, this is precisely why a reliable source, much less an encyclopedia, does not include something like this in a biography. It is a violation of Wikipedia policies including WP:BLP, in part precisely because such a lie could further alter public impression, and is the sort of thing that might harm the subject or even draw a lawsuit. This apparently has no basis in fact, and barring some dramatic revelation, it's not appropriate for article inclusion. To cover it simply as a rumor is to perpetuate that rumor and elevate that rumor to encyclopedic-grade information. This is not some decades-old, pervasive urban myth that has relevancy to someone's bio, and it is not Wikipedia's place to participate in making it so. Abrazame (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fan-generated content in Foreigner song articles

I'm beginning a process I've been wanting to do for some time, of presenting the entirety of a conversation that takes place across two or more talk pages in this one location for clarity and throughline. As this is not a priority, I will be doing this at my leisure going forward, first with new correspondence and then with selected conversations from previous dates. Immediately below, then, is my post from User talk:FuturePrimitive666, followed by the (indented) response from that user, which I have moved here from the middle of my talk page for chronology. As will be the case with any other efforts to this end, the only thing textually altered in any way would be the level of headings posted at other pages, and references to pages, in the interest of clarity here, and perhaps a wikilink to the page on which the other part of the conversation took place.

Welcome

First, I wanted to say that if your bio is true, it's great to have someone editing at Wikipedia with such an eclectic experience and background. However, there are guidelines here that help keep things on the encyclopedic up-and-up. I noticed your creation of a number of articles for singles from the band Foreigner, one of my favorites. I hadn't even realized there wasn't an article for, say, "That Was Yesterday", which was a gross oversight and thanks for starting one.

However, there are a couple of articles I didn't know were singles and can find no corroborating evidence for their release. Two for example are "I'll Get Even With You" and "Can't Wait". It's important to indicate if a single was released only in a certain territory, or only as a promo. That may be how I overlooked these singles. It's also possible that their inclusion on a compilation, their appearance on an album rock radio airplay chart, or some other such indicator misled you to infer that they were officially released as a single.

I'm not the kind of editor who goes around deleting things or slapping warning tags, but in this case I do request that you find a link to a reliable source that those two songs were indeed official single releases. In any event, it's difficult enough to get bots and policy editors to allow actual photographs of album covers, but your creation of representational images that are not the actual single covers are against policy and don't actually make any sense. The purpose of the picture is to identify the subject of the article, in this case a product, a vinyl single. If there was no picture sleeve, then the photograph is more harm than help in tracking the item down or understanding its promotion. It's a fun, creative fan-site or blog kind of thing, but inappropriate for the encyclopedia.

I notice a lot of other warnings on [your] page but I hope that you understand the value of some of the guidelines here and enjoy constructively contributing to Wikipedia in the future. It might help you to read WP:Reliable Source and WP:Fair Use. Best, Abrazame (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! YOU left a comment on my page about "Foreigner", and a couple of their singles. Thanks, for at the least, making the comments in a friendly tone, compared to the user, "eo" from Boston. In any case, I don't feel that I should have to prove or legitimize any contributions that I make to the site, but again, since YOU asked nicely, here is one, at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foreigner_-_I%27ll_Get_Even_With_You_b-w_Blinded_By_Science_%281979%29_single_A-side_big.jpg . That is the actual picture of the "Foreigner" Maxi-single that I purchased in the U.S. back in 1980. Since, I am in China, at the moment, the picture was taken by my son, and is very small - typical Webcam exposure size. The single came in a plain, black placement (typical of American 12" singles of the period), and had only simple writing on the cover of the song titles and band name, using the typical "Foreigner" logo. Yes, the picture added to the site is an appropriate facsimile. And yes, I added the facsimile to add creedence to the fact that not everyone remembers, or is aware of this single. Similar circumstances apply to the Promo single of "Can't Wait" that I once had in my possession while working as a disc-jockey in Germany. Since I no longer have the single in my possession, and am also unable to find any other information online other then the singles serial number from Atlantic Records then I simply created a facsimile with a similar type photo that was on the original cover. The original bald man was in hand-cuffs, otherwise the same. And, I stated that in the information to the single that it is a fan's facsimile. Whether or not, Wikipedia chooses to use the facsimiles, is not of my concern. I simply added them, and added and corrected some of the information. Wiki is open to submission to anyone who has better knowledge or pictures to post them. Having personal contact with a former, prominent member of the band, I did receive permission to add the photos that I did. He personally thinks all of the "outrage" expressed by "eo" is totally uncalled for, because he sees this site as a good way to promote the band, and keep his and all past and present members names in the minds of the masses. So, as I said to "eo" in a much more polite tone than he ever replied to me, I simply am contributing my knowledge, and if the facts are not desired then we can allow no one, or someone who has no idea to do it continue to run things, as YOU all wish, because the constant repeated inquiries and squabbles over what is correct, and what is not defeats the entire purpose of the internet - to discover more knowledge. By the way, the site was banned for many years in China, because of its lack of neutrality regarding the Chinese. And yet, I am accused of lacking neutrality, for example, by writing that the song, "Long, Long Way From Home" has a mellotron played on it! lol Lastly, in comparison to what I read about other artists, such as, Peter Frampton, I think my English is entirely appropriate. Whoever did the editing for Mr. Frampton's pages was certainly lacking in English abilities, to say the least. Thank YOU, for taking the time to read this! Rick FuturePrimitive666 (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - The most recent "Foreigner" single can be heard online here: http://www.spinner.ca/2009/08/05/foreigner-when-it-comes-to-love-song-premiere/ !!!

Let's keep working together to make wikipedia even better.

Hello. As someone like myself who enjoys improving the Obama related articles, I thought you might like to know about a wonderful, reliable new source of information on that topic. The new book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies by Michelle Malkin has 76 pages of endnotes, so everything in the book is well sourced and reliable. The book has also been at #1 on the New York Times Nonfiction Hardcover bestseller list for the past four weeks. First week at #1 Second week at #1 Third week at #1 Fourth week at #1 Given our past cooperation on improving Obama related articles, I am sure that you will be as pleased with this new book as I am. I know that you will enjoy reading it and using it as a source to help improve the various Obama related articles. Please keep up your good work here at wikipedia! Grundle2600 (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Platinum

No problems, no harm done when you work in good faith :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth...

My comment about Hilary was sexist in the same way not liking Obama is racist. Seriously, when the joke reaches childrens' TV (as it did when I was about six years old)... Sceptre ^(talk) 10:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like somebody, and you bring that person's name up out of the blue in order to insult them, and then in a second post you use sexist or racist comments to elaborate on your dislike—as you did—and you do so because you think it adds to the harmlessness of your sense of humor, most people aren't going to be able to distinguish that from actual sexism or racism. That is, presuming good faith that you did think your two posts of sexist comments were harmless, and it never occurred to you that someone at the Barack Obama talk page might take offense to your insults. But my point isn't whether you know whether you're sexist or racist, but that you know that you are misusing the talk page of a BLP.

Given that the LP of the B wasn't even a Clinton, and that the subject of that thread had nothing whatsoever to do with being a Clinton, being a woman, being married, or being "henpecked", indeed given that the thread was rehashing a patently obvious point (the definition of African American) that only a troublemaker is going to pretend not to understand, it's rather more than just a bit of a stretch, it's abuse, and not just abuse of the Clintons. It's likely to lead other editors to see you as cruising for a conflict, even if you do not actually cause one. Once the previous editor called you on your insulting comment inappropriate to the BLP talk page (a concept you've been around here long enough to be familiar with), what purpose does it serve to return to that BLP to elaborate on that comment with remarks even more offensive?

I'm not sure I really want to know, but I'm intrigued by the affect you note it had on you: what children's TV program presented a joke about the president's marriage and what was the joke? Abrazame (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Grundle Essay...

...at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama got reverted as off topic. I wouldn't have reverted it myself, but won't argue the point.

You had many good things to say, and I suggest you repost them to Grundle's talk page. Which has been busy lately, for obvious reasons. PhGustaf (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. Grsz¹¹ 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JANET! (again)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 10, 2009. Yay! I just needed someone to squeal to. :) On another note: have you ever done GA reviews? I'm trying to get Control (Janet Jackson album) to GA. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I know you love divas so I figured you might like a little lesson on the album that made Ms Jackson a superstar. To look at the criteria for evaluation, see Wikipedia:Good article criteria. For instructions on how to review: see Wikipedia:Good article nominations. To begin the review: go to Talk:Control (Janet Jackson album) then follow the instructions. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a bit more info to the article. I love Janet! Its hard to believe how harshly people have treated her over a momentary flash of nudity when she spent the early part of her career singing about safe-sex and abstinence. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I didn't know that about Adult Contemporary thank you!! Jayy008 (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I'm not too sure. I've just picked this up at 2009 deaths. But what the article really needs is a picture of the man.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 06:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message

Hi there, i agree about the us of the word "Band" but the article is littered with the same words being used over and over, also it stated that the "Original" members would reunite - this would not be the actual original or founding members.

Group is also used a little too much so if possible that was changed to Boyzone.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

Good argument and point taken!

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right Here Waiting by Richard Marx - Covered by Bryan Adams?

I'm sure there is a cover version of Right Here Waiting by Bryan Adams, I've heard a version that has "fatter" chords and the voice definately sounds like Bryan Adams. Am I mistaken??? --The One and only Shane91c! (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shane. Like Richard Marx, Bryan Adams is a songwriter as well as a singer; as such, they both focus on recording their own songs. On all of Bryan Adams' dozen and a half or so albums, there are only two songs he released which he did not write. Marx has nearly as many albums, but—until a 2008 album—had only released one song he didn't write.

User-generated content on the web has caused several popularly-held falsehoods. If you type "In Your Eyes" into a Google search window, the fifth most popular suggestion is "In Your Eyes" Ben Harper lyrics, as if Ben Harper wrote the song. The version people think is Ben Harper is actually Jeffrey Gaines, but the confusion is so rampant that his name doesn't come up in the top 10 suggestions. At least in that instance, the original artist, Peter Gabriel, is the #2 suggestion. But another popularly misattributed song is "(I Just) Died in Your Arms". Here the tenth most popular Google suggestion is "Journey", who never recorded the song, nor did any of the other '80s artists often cited by user-generated web content. Nowhere in the top 10 suggestions is the actual artist, Cutting Crew. Laura Branigan—who frequently did record covers—did not record "Holding Out For A Hero" (or "I Need A Hero"), that was Bonnie Tyler, and in turn Branigan's cover of "Forever Young" is often attributed to others, while others' versions are attributed to her.

Of course I didn't just rely on my personal knowledge, I did a Google search of the title and Adams' name, and the only sources for the connection are this sort of mistaken impression by casual listeners. Watching the beginnings of two YouTube videos they were amateurs lip-syncing to Marx's single. If Adams has covered the song, there's no record of it, in either sense of the word. Is it possible you're thinking of the Bonnie Tyler version? ;) She's got a raspy voice and covered a couple other Adams songs, including "Straight From The Heart". It's also possible you've heard a re-recording by Marx, say a live version?

Obviously if you find proof in a WP:Reliable Source (personally, I'd accept a YouTube video that's undoubtedly him actually singing the song), by all means put it in the article, and I'll be happy to admit I was wrong. It's impossible for me to prove a negative, but it shouldn't be that hard to prove a positive, if he actually did record it. Best, Abrazame (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama pronunciation

Hi Abrazame,

Thanks for your reply. My question was prompted by reading this article, which does use /ɵ/ in its transcription of "Ohio": /ɵˈhaɪ.oʊ/. (It also uses it for some other states, e.g. Iowa /ˈaɪ.ɵwə/.) For some states, that article gives a different IPA from the states' pages themselves, so I'm sorry if that caused some confusion. (You might be interested in getting that page to agree with the state pages in the cases where they differ.)

The project page for transcribing English in IPA, here, does include /ɵ/ and gives "omission" as an example (hence my comment), as well as "kilogram". (It's under the "Reduced Vowels" heading.)

I'm sorry if you thought I was attempting to "degrade" the sounds of Obama's name, which was not my intention. (Had it been so, I wouldn't have used the talk page in the first instance.) /oʊ/ isn't by any means problematic, just less specific. Anyway, this isn't a huge issue for me so I'll leave it now.

Thanks, Lfh (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your help page question

Why do you oppose multiple references? Is it simply a redundancy argument, or do you object to the ugly appearance of an article with many examples of three or more footnotes dangling at the end of a single sentence? If it is the former, I don't see the harm being sufficient to create a policy against it. I agree that an uncontroversial fact requires a single reference for explanation. However, I can easily imagine an editor finding a second reference, perhaps discussing the point in a much better way. Useless arguments might ensue if you remove the first reference, based upon your argument that your reference is "better". Easier to simply allow both.

If your argument is that it makes the appearance ugly, I agree. While there are "only" 124 footnotes, many are used multiple times, so there are almost 200 footnotes in a 4000 word article. It is visually ugly.

What I would really like to see happen is to make all footnotes invisible to the reader, and displayable as an option to the reader who wants to check sources, I don't expect that to happen soon. As a fallback, you can put multiple references in a single footnote. While not desired in scientific articles, perhaps it would be acceptable in a non-scientific article. To see an example, check out this sandbox, and note that footnote 1, 5 and others have more than one citation.--SPhilbrick T 13:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cher articles

Hi!, Thank you for your work on the Could've Been You article. Can you take a look also for the Cher filmography? I intend to nominate this for FL... Kekkomereq4 (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Jillian

Hi. Thanks for fixing the Ann Jillian article. My bad, mea culpa. Don't know what I was thinking about. Un abrazo, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...

...we may not always agree, but I certainly have no argument with you. And on Talk:Barack Obama, I think we agree about the content pretty closely. In case you care. Frank | talk 20:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny!

I see that over at Talk:Barack Obama you said, "I'd point out that nobody's really discussing anything at Presidency lately. The entire talk page there is two sections, with only a single, unresponded-to comment in the past month."

Heh heh heh.

I used to post huge amounts of stuff over there, so your comment made me laugh.

Thanks for the belly laugh!

Have a great weekend, and please keep up the good editing!

Happy holidays too.

Take care.

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Jews

I don't understand it either. See here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this has contributed to the issue moving on to a broader forum. See here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving at Talk:Barack Obama

The archive was twice cut down over the break. First by Wikidemon, and then by Sceptre. In both cases, it was because the talk page had expanded to unreasonable levels due to the activities of one POV pusher (now topic banned) and multiple socks of Multiplyperfect. Increasing the archive time is fine, but was it really necessary to undo the bot? What vitally important threads were saved? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that 5 days is too short. People have different weekly cycles and it's only fair to let everyone participate unless the page is just unmanageable. 7 is about right, but I chose to take the incremental approach. In addition to the socks we had UnitAnode's expressions of frustration, and that new editor who's now on a 1-month block, both of whom generated a volume of text that astounds even me. I have a feeling with those two editors out of the picture for the moment we won't have a big length problem. Manually archiving and unarchiving is a little tricky. The main problem with undoing the archive bot is that you should then remove the unarchived stuff from the archive to avoid having the bot create duplicate threads when it archives them a second time. Better yet, there are few enough threads that if you really want to restore some you could pick and choose any meaningful ones that seem to promise further discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, the page was over 600KB for days, and at some points was even over 650KB. It was horrible. It's back down to a dull roar now at 110KB, which is still larger than many articles but certainly reasonable for moving back to 10d (already done) or even 14d. Frank | talk 02:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all three of you for your comments. Of course I agree that the editor to whom you refer had moved from someone with a conscience-driven, if POV, argument to someone essentially spamming the page long before he was temporarily blocked. To that point I think we need to re-hone our direction to neutrally and inoffensively focus on editorial issues fairly and with as much explanation as is reasonably necessary. From the offensive attacks, on the one hand, to the comments vaguely praising good points worthy of discussion, on the other, we're sending mixed signals that enable if not create the very sort of righteous persistence that we are trying to responsibly dissuade. Any good points worthy of discussion on the talk page for that article should be specifically identified for the purpose of driving the thread in that direction to the exclusion of editorially unacceptable points, separating any wheat there may be from the chaff. (Sometimes it's all chaff and obviously a ton of chaff makes it hard to focus on the one grain of wheat that may be lost somewhere within.)

To the archive bot, I had forgotten that undoing the bot edit does not fully undo the bot's action; thanks for pointing that out. I vaguely recall raising an issue, perhaps that was the one, with the guy who created it, whose response was that once having created it he had no further interest in refining his design.

To the vitally important thread saved, I will note that when I have time, it's my hope that the editorial issues underpinning the Newross/QueenofBattle edits would be seen for and decided upon what they are, rather than the issue being dismissed for superficial reasons. I am troubled that editors at that page, in both circumstances, seem to be refusing to accept the substantive editorial issue(s) that do or should allow or prevent an edit/edit suggestion in favor of—I'll say perceptions and preconceptions. Sometimes the person who won't let it go is the one in the wrong editorially, though it's reasonable why some would be annoyed it hasn't gone away yet and reasonable — to a point — how that one person needs a little time to see this. Other times the person who won't let it go is the one in the right editorially, and it's less reasonable that out of a phalanx of editors none of them is willing to see beyond their reaction to deal with the editorial issues. I haven't been involved at the article for a few days and a glance at it now finds it has been reinserted, but if that doesn't stand, perhaps that's best handled by starting a new thread, one that provides a concise summary of editorial points already established and can indicate to other editors that they need to approach this anew, with open minds attuned to the editorial issue at hand. Abrazame (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:HappyInGeneral

Good post, and I tend to agree with the points you raised in general. The disappearance of two of the most vociferous and outlandish Falun Gong defenders has indeed turned the tide. It's not at all easy editing there - it remains just as challenging today to achieve the level of quality which I desire as it was two years ago, before any of them were banned. I do agree with you that there needs to be a counterbalance. However, the ambiance is stressful, and I have decided once again to drop the family of articles from my watchlist.

Anyway, the real reason for my post is to satisfy my curiosity: I wanted to ask you why are you sticking up for Happy, who is very doctrinaire and belligerent, instead of asdfg, who is a much more reasonable editor in almost every way? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for writing. As I noted, I had come across HappyInGeneral in a Neutral Point of View noticeboard thread where a user was doing a bad job of accusing him of things and it seemed to me it was the other way around, that HIG was accurately representing refs and definitions and this other user was trying to discredit him to push a POV. When I stumbled across this new thread at the Administrator's noticeboard, I recalled HIG and his Falun Gong affiliation and reviewing some of the arguments there I was unconvinced that these were grounds for a six-month topic ban. I've seen people who hold pages hostage to their POV, with hundreds of posts in a couple of weeks' time, but the diffs provided in this instance simply did not equate with that behavior and, in my opinion, they did not add up to this kind of administrative action.

I can relate to what you say about editors who come across as deeply ideological and belligerent, yet my brief participation in the NPOV thread and my review of several diffs in this matter found him to be fairly balanced and actually polite and friendly. Perhaps his politeness and friendliness is sarcasm? (Perhaps your comment that the tide has turned is, too?)

To answer your question, I didn't stand up for asdfg simply because I had no prior association with that editor and only had the time to review one set of diffs and compose one comment last evening. As I stated, I haven't edited or monitored those pages and didn't review the dozens of talk page archives. If asdfg was so much more reasonable, why did that editor's review result in the exact same six-month topic ban, passed down the same day? Perhaps if the arbitration had allowed a longer comment period, your post here would have led me to review asdfg's diffs and support him as well. With only the HIG diffs provided there to go on, and your involved take on asdfg, it's hard not to sense that something of an injustice has happened in both cases. Although perhaps that admin. does like in the Olympics, and throws away the harshest and the most favorable comment and then decides based on the remainder!

Your comment here ("...the level of quality which I desire...") and your comment on asdfg's behalf in the arbitration suggests you are an asset to the article who is attuned to balance and fairness. I understand and support your need for a break but I hope this very complex and sensitive issue I don't know in any detail does not suffer in the absence of the three of you. And I lament that the project doesn't have a broader and more nuanced palette of ways to deal with these stressful issues.

What do you think about my comment that there should be something short of a total topic ban for certain editors? Do you think the ambience there might have been less stressful and the article would have been better served if there was a method of limiting a particularly problematic user's edits to, say, one article and three talk page edits per day in their problem topic area? I imagine it should be easy for someone technically inclined to make a bot for that. If, as was decided, a HappyInGeneral did deserve the total ban, perhaps an asdfg really only deserved what I am suggesting — or perhaps both would have found this option a better tool for learning to refine their editing behavior to concise, salient, important issues. Abrazame (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I started editing the articles a few years ago, before I knew much about FLG, I was generally supportive of them but could not see how the articles could have been so one-sided, and close to advertising. It was when I got stuck in that I realised there was a basic problem of belligerence with Falun Gong practitioners, and the fact that the high polarity means most other editors simply stay away (or get driven away) because of the infernal editing temperatures. I also found out the Falun Gong advocacy (as well as their 'genteel' comportment) was well documented in professional literature, and in fact highly visible in the streets of Hong Kong and elsewhere in the West. This is not the first time I dropped the FLG articles from my watchlist for my own sanity, and I think a permanent vacation from FLG articles is on the cards as I think I may have become oversensitive to the presence of these FLG editors. I caught myself out by neglecting to drop one article, only to find myself once again in pitch battle with another obvious FLG sympathiser there.
I have had quite a long working relationship with asdfg, and while I find him occasionally tending to verbosity, he is usually prepared to listen. The change in the editing dynamic due to the presence of the other guy, on the other hand, is very obvious despite his general polite language. I agree that the sanctions meted out to asdfg could have been more nuanced, as the 'all or nothing' topic ban is a blunt instrument. I understand that new discretionary remedies have been made available, and I welcome them. It seems that asdfg has now filed for the topic ban to be lifted, and he has cited your comment above as one of the supporting arguments. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Stop removing my comments from the Obama talk page or I will have you blocked. JB50000 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abrazame originally removed my comments but now is only removing the rant, which is ok with me. JB50000 (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Abrazame, it's a political rant and a BLP violation, and it doesn't belong on the page at all. If you see points that could be taken from the original rant, please feel free to bring those up in your own words. However, the rant has no place on the page. Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cher articles

Hi Abrazame! You want to help me to create a Wikiproject releated with Cher for improve all her articles? I will wait your reply :) Kekkomereq4 (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, sorry but I can't understand this, (What do you see my participation being?) Kekkomereq4 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

My suggestion of the manned space cancellation was done for several reasons. First of all, even though I am fascinated by America, I don't know a lot about American politics and couldn't begin to edit a political article. Second, introducing a list is an objective way to decide what to add. Once there is a list of 25 items, it may be clear that 6 of them should be included in the article. If just introduced as the events occur, it's difficult to be objective and to not give more weight to one thing but not another due to editors coming for a few days then leaving.

As far as your complaint of my post being a coatrack, I looked up the definition. Right now, that is not a problem. It may or may not be a problem later. Your comment of the Larry King show is either so brillant that normal people don't understand the humor or is, itself, a coat in a coatrack and should be removed. I don't understand the joke or if it is a joke, you may translate.

For the past few months, I always stop editing at the first of the month for a few days so that I will be refreshed each month. I see that I forgot about February so I will stop in a few minutes and return in 1-5 days. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User: 190fordhouse

I have just discovered from last year after looking at several conflicting edits in music articles that I had issue with then. This user 190fordhouse is a continuation of sock puppetry by this user User: 995Star. All those users I've shown are the same person as User: 190fordhouse and their own sock puppets. This person is not a first time offender of sock puppetry, but SECOND TIME. Glad your being very helpful, so I wanted to notify you of this.Carmaker1 (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga

What is "problematic" from a WP:BLP point of view about a question that Gaga was prepared to answer on national television for Barbara Walters? I've been around on Wikipedia for a long time, but have seldom come across this sort of opposition. The article is not a publicity piece for Gaga, and we are not in a position to second guess her wishes. I am very disappointed about what has happened here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I generally agree with your viewpoint on the things, but they're still nice to receive occasionally. Thx. Fat&Happy (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)

You reverted an edit of mine here a few days ago; I’ve opened a discussion here, if you’d care to join in. Swanny18 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your thoughtful, polite, and helpful comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-ha and their fans. That was the response I should have written. Nice! Glenfarclas (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISS

Hi Abrazame, I thought their should be a section in the Presidency of Barack Obama article about his governments policy towards NASA. There was nothing in the Science and Technology section but I decided to place the image there anyway just because it is an image that involves both Obama and science and technology. Also their are no other images in that section so it helps to break the text up a bit. If you don't think it is relevant then I understand. Originalwana (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page edit

BLP policy applies to living persons, so reference to it can be discounted straight-off. As the BLP policy explains itself; material "must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines." (bolding mine)

This is content on a talk page, guidelines and policy are therefore different from article pages. Policy here is chiefly to stop people adding libellous original research and opinions that have no credible source, wouldn't ever be permissible on the article, and are not about improving the article. However, as I see it, this is a genuine attempt to discuss sourced information that may be of value to the article. Additionally, you cannot libel a dead person. Whether the link actually backs up the what the editor is suggesting isn't the really point. No-one can discuss and accurately evaluate what is being suggested if a link to the source isn't permitted.

Anyway it appears that the issue you have with the newspaper article is not even what the IP editor is referencing. So your argument appears to be that you shouldn't link to material that sits alongside other material, that isn't permissible on Wikipedia. The fact that the link is actually broken and no longer leads to the article makes your objection doubly confusing. There is also little point in removing or oversighting a link to something that has already been published elsewhere and is not in anyway illegal.

So, in balance, I think removing the link is unproductive censorship and prevents constructive discussion. It also gives a mis-leading impression of the validity of the initial editor's contribution. So usual talk-page decorum should apply, you don't go back and change other's contributions, even if it contains errors, and particularly not when you are also disagreeing with what they are suggesting.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been referred to

FYI, just cause I'd want to know if someone referred to me.--Asdfg12345 05:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?

You took my edit off Obama and said to see talk. There is nothing there. Did you talk? If not, you should, because that is the correct way of doing things. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your second version here best! ;) By the time you read this you will have noticed that I have posted at that talk page what I hope is a clear explanation, and of course I began to write that immediately after making the edit and posted it moments after your comment here. I want to repeat that I do assume good faith on your part, as I noted in the edit summary. In fact, I vaguely recall that there was some suggestion you made there some weeks or months ago and then removed...I seem to recall thinking part of that suggestion was a good idea I would support, though I can't recall what it was. It's refreshing to have someone new genuinely trying to contribute neutral material there with no axe to grind; even if many of your suggestions haven't been found relevant, I'm sure you will ultimately contribute something we can use if it's your wish to continue. I certainly welcome your participation. While it's possible you'll find something relevant to U.S. domestic policy, perhaps the difficulty you express as being someone looking at the U.S. from outside could be an asset to determining what foreign opinions of the U.S. and U.S. foreign policy issues, both as directly related to Obama, may be missed by navel-gazing Americans!

In fact, was the thing you mentioned about the nuclear missile base in Poland? I think that's a fair discussion to have, to see if we can make a relevant, sourced statement about what Obama's decision was there. If you bring that up again, I would be interested to explore it with you. Best wishes, Abrazame (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was cheering for Finland to win the bronze medal in women's hockey. Then they did it. So I challenged the men's hockey team to win the gold or I would, as punishment, not edit in 2 weeks. I should not have made the challenge (nothing would change anyway) because Finland just lost the gold medal and can only win bronze now. However, I do not lie and will stop editing for 2 weeks starting now. I've decided to cheat and if they win the bronze, I will shorten that period slightly. That's the last time I make such sweeping promises. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Well for our sake I hope Finland wins bronze! Personally, I haven't been watching the hockey (and why every time I turn it on are they still curling?! How much curling does it take?!) but primarily I've been rooting for Apollo Anton Ohno in the short track skating events. Disappointed to see him disqualified in the 500 just now (his hand was up defensively, not as a push), but he's still got the bizarre relay event coming up tonight. (Where pushing is an integral part!) Abrazame (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Andrew

Hi, I reverted it because it was irrelevant what his father was working on when out popped baby Andrew. Especially in the first sentence of the article. Maybe somewhere else, but not in the first sentence. :) —Mike Allen 08:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image tag fix... (Andrew Koenig)

MUCH thanks for that. Can you tell me what I did wrong? I simply copied and pasted the code from the Image reference page - but obviously something I did was not correct.

Thanks, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 23:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, you're more than welcome. Though I hadn't really watched either Koenig's work, I found myself particularly moved by the early appeals and had been praying for him and the family; upon hearing the news on the 26th I worked to present a broader and more balanced sketch of the man at that page, as could be sourced, despite some pushback since. Knowing that someone would arrive and report the backward factoid that he had been arrested, I searched for the human story behind the civil disobedience and wrote the humanitarian section; I also added the material about Ellison's observations of him when he was a child (a longer version of the quote, since reduced by another editor), and expanded the career section.

I'm not an expert at uploading photos and have only done it a couple times, but it's my understanding that you were using a code for a general article photo, which requires manual addition of a caption. With the main article infobox, the photo automatically shares the default title of the infobox (the person's name), which appears whether there is a photo or not, and does not allow for a caption. This is why the code became visible. It's my understanding that, if there were to be any additional photo you may like to add in the future for use elsewhere in the article, you can copy and paste just as you did, and the text you add in the space in question would properly appear as its caption.

As a tip, the shortcut I took to make sure I knew how to fix the formatting was by opening the "edit this page" window of a different biography article that already had an infobox photo, and observing how the code appeared there. Abrazame (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! I tried that too on my second (or third?) revision... but I seem to have selected a page with a PNG... maybe that is where I messed up. Anyway, needless to say, I obviously need to spend some more time playing in the sandbox. :-)

Thanks again! RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Day

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

Please be so good as to show me where I was canvassing support for my position that you accused me of here, Asking another editor to further comment on something that he was intregrally a part of does not in anyway constitute inappropriate canvassing. This is the second time you have made bad faith accusations against me on that page. The first was your referencing my and Rossrs' comments as tag team editing when in fact, the agreement or both commenting does not in any way violate what that page has to say. Asking him to comment too was not telling him what to say or what to support and I would suggest you read much into what was said that was not true. If you knew Rossrs as well as I do, you'd know that no one can tell him what to say. Saying "Perhaps you could too" was a request for him to comment, not how to comment. I object to the meaning you seem to have read into my post and your jumping to the conclusion that I did something wrong. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I actively work against you. That you didn't further respond was a fact, not fancy. The discussion was factually dropped. I also object to your scathing commentary on your view of me posted at Rossrs' talk page and failing in any way to address these same issues with me. I don't view you as an adversary, your position is simply something with which I disagree. There was no reason for your rather extensive summary of how you view me on that page. Please read Rossrs' reply to you about that. He summarizes it well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case

I am informing you that I have filed a WP:SPI case which indirectly involves you here. DD2K (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, and for your work on that. I've posted a comment there. Abrazame (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, there and here. I've taken a step back in order to let the process play out, and not turn the page into some kind of flame war page. I'm confidant that a CU will turn up a veritable 'sock farm', but I've been wrong before. Keep up the good work, and thanks again. DD2K (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She Bangs

You know, I agree. The thing is that I researched news archives from 2000 and before the infobox had stated that the release date was November 14, 2000, but I remembered it being a hit on the radio well before Halloween during October 2000. A site stated August 22, 2000 as the release date and to me it initially didn't make sense, considering how I believed it was really late September of 2000, like the 29th or 30th. News articles first start printing information about his "new" single "She Bangs" around late-middle August 2000 and most of it stems from him shooting the music video around August 20, 2000. It probably didn't hit the radio until 1 month and a week later. Glad to know that my unsureness towards August 22, 2000 was justified. Thanks.Carmaker1 (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential styles edit

Abrazame, I just wanted to congratulate you on your recent Talk:Barack Obama post about reverting the Presidential Styles edit. It was a very diplomatic and well-reasoned response, a nice example of WP:AGF and making newbies comfortable. CouldOughta (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Conflict

Hi, We were just editing the same item at the same time (I Just) Died in Your Arms. The way you changed the dead link to a new link as a ref is cool. I was wondering how to handle it to, Just to touch base with you, I am working on Category:Wikipedia backlog and (I Just) Died in Your Arms just happend to be the first article on the list. Do you work on music ? are you working on dead links ? Just wondering I don't like to step on toes. Mlpearc MESSAGE 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you message. Sorry if I messed you up, Just so you know I just found Wikipedia:Dead links which I should of done before, so in the future I will make better edits. My aim is to help to shrink the backlog's, But at the same time replacing dead link with fact just moves the article to a new list. Anyway I'm going to study up before re-attacking, And again thanks for your input, If you come across any more of my "mess up's" please let me know. Mlpearc MESSAGE 01:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I rolledback all my edits at (I Just) Died in Your Arms except for one the J-Stubbs internal link, if you want to leave it as a "sugested link" I'll re do it. Thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a second to find this message, I got your at my talk but was going "who's this, what's this. No problem my friend no offense meant or taken either,hope to bump into you again, Happy Editing Mlpearc MESSAGE 21:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name game

You might not be aware that the word "fanny" is cruder in the UK than in the US... AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for calling that to my attention. In the U.S. it's a child-friendly name that is not even remotely rude, but your comment here led me to discover it's a completely different term in British English, so I've reverted myself there, with the British-English qualifier so nobody else will make the same mistake. Best, Abrazame (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Robert Gates

I reverted to my changes regarding Robert Gates. He is the SECOND individual to serve as Secretary of Defense under two different presidents; Donald Rumsfeld was the first (Ford and Bush II). Anybody who knows recent American history will affirm this. So don't change it back and put erroneous info back up.

Thanks

@@ Line 691: / Line 691: @@
 You might not be aware that the word "fanny" is cruder in the UK than in the US... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 00:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 :Many thanks for calling that to my attention.  In the U.S. it's a child-friendly name that is not even remotely rude, but your comment here led me to discover it's a completely different term in British English, so I've reverted myself there, with the British-English qualifier so nobody else will make the same mistake.  Best, [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame#top|talk]]) 00:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
+== Re:  Robert Gates ==
+I reverted to my changes regarding Robert Gates.  He is the SECOND individual to serve as Secretary of Defense under two different presidents; Donald Rumsfeld was the first (Ford and Bush II).  Anybody who knows recent American history will affirm this.  So don't change it back and put erroneous info back up.
+Thanks