User talk:Kww

Archives at

1. User talk:Kww/04022009
2. User talk:Kww/Archive05202009
3. User talk:Kww/Archive09072009
4. User talk:Kww/04012010
5. User talk:Kww/04232010
6. User talk:Kww/06052010
7. User talk:Kww/06182010
8. User talk:Kww/07182010
9. User talk:Kww/07242010
10. User talk:Kww/11012010
11. User talk:Kww/04142011
12. User talk:Kww/08252011
13. User talk:Kww/03122012
14. User talk:Kww/11032012
15. User talk:Kww/06092013

Good article reassessment

I mentioned your name here as a possible closer and no one objected so am hoping you would consider it. I imagine you are familiar with the article and have been following the debate. AIRcorn (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it tomorrow.—Kww(talk) 06:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Some questions to the singlechart template

I just wanted to try to understand the kind of technical things you are using in Template:Singlechart for maybe being able to edit it later by disassembling all parts of the template, but I finally failed. Template:Singlechart/chartnote for example is a macro that made me get really confused as I totally understand nothing what a macro contains. I also got confused trying to edit the sandbox as my changes were not saved and it instead showed an error which I could not understand. So, I tried to copy the template into my userspace (User:Ali1610/Template:Singlechart to edit it but it just displays nothing, what depends on some missing other linked templates, I suppose? So how to get into this template or at least how to understand it? :S --Ali1610 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's there: just press the "edit" button.—Kww(talk) 15:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, yes, of course the text is there, but that does not help me as I want to see what I am editing, and neither the save- nor the preview-function shows anything... --Ali1610 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Never will. Take a look at User:Kww/singlechart and User talk:Kww/singlechart. I use the talk page to test calls and see how they expand.—Kww(talk) 17:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed. That will make my plannings difficult as I had some ideas for the charttable, both new charts to which a template could be created (as the Canadian RPM charts or Austrian, German and Swiss dance charts) and also improvements for the charttable itself. I will make a list and we will see what you can add or what not, as I do not see myself in a position to be able to edit this table ^^ --Ali1610 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Block restrictions

Hi kww, just wondering if it is time for my restrictions to be lifted yet? I think I have made significant progress and matured/learned over roughly six months. Thanks. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

AIR Charts

Hey, I want to add AIR Charts to {{Singlechart}}, can you add it? I don't know but I think it's not a bad chart right?Ggdlmnt (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Broken BillboardDanceElectronic album template

I have found a broken template, but I do not know how to fix this myself, I suggest that this is just one or two letters :D Example:

Chart (2009)	Peak position
US Top Dance/Electronic Albums (Billboard)	7

Please fix that or show me how to do. --Ali1610 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It was missing a carriage return inside the template. I don't mind you asking me about it, but it's really Hahc21 that maintains albumchart. He just borrowed my code as a basis to start from.—Kww(talk) 17:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for fixing. Could you introduce that system somewhen to me? That does not have to be now as I´m stressed aswell. I´m interested in these templates and maybe a template for the year-end charts could be made, as Billboard is now publishing some year-end charts in the artist chart history... And did you overlook my question some sections above? :) --Ali1610 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If you mean the one about Zobbel, no, I didn't overlook it. I just don't feel comfortable endorsing Zobbel by encoding it into singlechart.—Kww(talk) 17:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean the one called "Controlling my article" four sections above this one. So you really overlooked it ^^ --Ali1610 (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The table is broken again although I did nothing in this part of the template? I am confused... Please fix if you can. Additionally, is there a possibility to send you my proposals for new charts getting added to the template with example links and the parameters that would be needed? I am not able to add them myself as for example I cannot add any notes. And I do not want to send you this on your talkpage... --Ali1610 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You broke the carriage return again. I fixed it.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, but I did not edit anything in this part of the template and as you can see in the version history, I additionally entered a space, but that did not help. So what did you exactly do to correct this?

Please also answer the second question in my post before ;) --Ali1610 (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You did it right here. Don't know why. I fixed it by inserting the carriage return. You can send me requests, so long as you are patient in waiting for results.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Query

Hi. I just came across User:HeidiHalliwell and their contributions, particularly the way they create and move their userspace drafts and the edits to music related articles, reminded me of User:Lizzy Green, who you blocked in January for vandalism. I was just wondering if the two accounts looked similar to you or am I barking up the wrong tree? - JuneGloom Talk 20:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Back to Basics

Ah, our old friend Mathiassandell. Thanks for dealing with that, Kww; I had seen you make a few blocks of Mathiassandell's other socks but was I hesitant to give out any blocks myself due to my involvement. Thank you. Acalamari 17:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Mariah is back

Per My Bra, s/he has returned as 86.165.48.75 (talk · contribs) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you protect London with the Lights On and maybe Slip (song)? S/He is targeting it too much in recent days. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinion

Could you opine on this matter? Regards — Robin (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Whats the problem(ray of light)?

Hi, thanks for unbloked me!!!

Ray of Light sold most than 20 milions http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/150058.stm%7Ctítulo=Madonna http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2012-03-30/madonnas-top-11-controversies-and-how-they-helped-her-succeed-commercially/%7Ctítulo=Madonna’s

I cant undestand because RL sold 20M,but some people insist on 16M My dream is one day all people agree that Ray of Light sold 20 MILLION

Reporting User:Loginnigol

Hi Kww. The user linked has been removing a picture of Christina Aguilera unnecessarily on "Birthday Cake (song)". (The difference is: before and after). I have reverted him twice: the first time my edit summary/reason was that it was unexplained, the second time I reverted and posted on his talk page here with a warning explaining why it should not be removed. He has reverted me three times, and says that the picture is spamming the article, and thus is on the 3RR borderline. He doesn't understand that the mention of a singer, or anyone/anything, means that it is allowed to be included and is allowed to stay. It was heavily reported that Aguilera was on the remix, fuelled by Rihanna's actions. Instead of me reverting him for a third time, I am asking you to put the picture back in the article and take whatever action you feel necessary on User:Loginnigol.  — AARON • ^TALK 18:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Reporting User:Calvin999

This person is trying to insert picture of a person in Birthday Cake (song) page even though the picture has no factual relevance to the subject. --Loginnigol (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You're in the wrong here, not me.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

US charts and certifications

Hey Kevin. Since you are obviously pretty invested in the charting of songs, I was wondering how you feel about what the US has been doing... Recap: The Hot 100 now includes streaming, as well as the RIAA.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Streaming doesn't seem very different from radio airplay: advertiser-supported media that allow someone to listen to a song without buying it.—Kww(talk) 22:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm not keen on it, I can see why they included it on the Hot 100. However, certifications have always been based solely on sales. That seems so outrageous to me. They could have at least created a separate certification like they have for ringtones (or had, I don't know if it still exists now.)  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you show me an announcement saying that the RIAA recognizes streaming?—Kww(talk) 22:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Found it. It only counts towards the digital cert and does so at 1% of the weight of a purchase, so a digital Gold would would require 5,000,000 streamed views. I understand why you don't like the mixing, but that doesn't seem outrageously wrong.—Kww(talk) 23:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the fact that Justin Bieber's "Baby" sold just under 4 million copies in the US and is now certified 12x platinum is quite outrageous.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bodyguard

the bodyguard wasnot certificed by ABPD with 750,but with 100M.Check the history of certificed in ABPD.Im from brazil i know the history //www.abpd.org.br/certificados.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreMoneyGomes (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

LOOK http://www.abpd.org.br/certificados_interna.asp and http://www.abpd.org.br/niveis_de_certificacao.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreMoneyGomes (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Belinda

Top 40 and news articles!!!!!!! xoxoxo177.97.141.254 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

discography

sorry but in Anggun discography, the Malaysian and Indonesian chart is already there before i edit itGgdlmnt (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Vilify

In the article for Vilify (song), chartbot made this edit, but it provided a link to an incorrect page. The issue could be that there are two bands named Device listed in Billboard, one with artist id 300837 and one with 1556810. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've disabled Chartbot on that article for now. How would you feel about using "Device (pop rock band)" and "Device (heavy metal band)" in the call? That's how we distinguish the articles.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Return of TheREALCableGuy

Just reopened the user's sockpuppet case, as Macbookpro1990 (talk · contribs) seems to have a few hallmarks that match up perfectly to TRCG's editing MO, if you would like to comment. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 03:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Nelly is Portuguese

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/nelly-furtado http://www.spiritartists.com/nelly-furtado.html http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/nelly-furtado

Do you need any more references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phuytt (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you revert your changes?

No. What you have found are copies of a last.fm article that has been copied to other places. Those last.fm articles were edited after this controversy arose on Wikipedia, where Wikipedia editors inserted the claim and then tried to use it as a source. Last.fm is a wiki, edited by amateurs, and does not meet our standards of being a reliable source. Those pages have been heavily discussed before. Feel free to try to find a reliable source for the citizenship claim.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Mathias

He has been changing multiple genres the last few days. Comparing the geolocation of Aguilera's socks and this IP: 91.154.103.158 (talk · contribs), which is the lattest, I have no doubt he is he. Also, can you protect/watchlist Insomnia (Faithless song)? An editor from Argentina has been disrupting various pages. Although he is right and Tiësto remixed the song, it is not a single and as such it is not his song or he is featured (and the article includes no information). I left a RPP report BTW. This nonsense started with True Love (Pink song) and moved to Blue (Da Ba Dee), Boot, Leggings, and others. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, Mariah still editing as 86.165.48.93 (talk · contribs) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Muhammad

Thanks for referring me there. I'll move the new section there.Truth-seeker2004 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

billboard

i got a source from a forum. sorry you'll never accept that as a source but it will be published by billboard

173.218.4.77

The IP makes the same edits as Billim1 did, mainly involving Arkansas and western Missisippi and Tennessee television stations by changing branding and weblinks that do not meet sourcing or MOS standards, uploading images without sourcing (something unable to be done with an IP, obviously) and also to subjects involving Cabot Public Schools, where is how I can tell if it is a Billim1 sock or not. Billim1 has been giving many opportunities in the past to explain their editing behavior and work with us, but has consistently refused to do so, and thus works now on IPs to avoid scrutiny. Nate • (chatter) 05:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please block User talk:Zietebá

Hi, can you please block User talk:Zietebá with no expiry set (indefinite), because if Zietebá may changing genres again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.179.79 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking 96.4.156.41

Thanks for blocking this user.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenzo999 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

MariaJay

Per 86.165.48.93 (talk · contribs), s/he is disrupting Why? (Mis-Teeq song) and Roll On (Mis-Teeq song). Can you protect them? Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you block the IP as well. S/he still active as 86.142.55.197 (talk · contribs). Thanks again. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. S/he has returned as 86.170.127.249 (talk · contribs), per their edits at Jentina, as well as Monkey Business and "Don't Lie". Thanks again. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Your AfD closure - OVPsim

You just closed this discussion whilst I was typing out an additional comment I wished to make, which ended up edit conflicting and now I can't add it as as the AfD has been closed. I don't think there was any consensus ( WP:NOCONSENSUS ) to delete the article, indeed I posted the only delete vote and that was "weak delete", and I have since agreed (as stated in the AfD) with Widefox's proposal to userify the article rather than simply deleting it. So could we do that please if are going to close it? --wintonian ^talk 02:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That must have been frustrating, but I can understand this being closed delete, although userify I believe is the consensus, so that should be done IMHO. I just don't see anyone making any argument to keep, or requesting/agreeing it userified to their page, and as it can always be rescued and userified later who actually cares about it? Seems even the WP:SPAs that are all over it don't. Now that it is closed, let's say WP:SNOW - Wikipedia:INCUBATE#Incubation criteria just needs 4. someone willing to Wikipedia:INCUBATE. Widefox; talk 10:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about WP:SPA, I saw no evidence of anything untoward, just an intrest in a single subject, but then I am quite fond of the Presumption of innocence. But anyway the point is that there was no consensus to delete and thereforte it should be kept as per WP:NOCONSENSUS an whichd forms part of the deletion policy ( Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_of_articles ) rather than simply being a guideline. I have considerd taking this to WP:DRV but that would akin to starting a pointless argument ( WP:LAME ) and more specifically be a Wikipedia:Waste of Time and I don't want to be such a trouble maker. and yes it was frustrating but I'll get over it :). --wintonian ^talk 16:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to reply to the side topic about WP:SPAs. User:Duncgrah is an SPA, that's a fact. There's nothing implied by that until you asserted it above, which I hope you will take back WP:AGF. The main relevance now, which I'm sure Kww is alluding to, is that userfying to an new SPA isn't ideal, and incubate might make more sense. Thank you Widefox; talk 12:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone actually requests userfication, I'd probably be cooperative. Right now, people are only suggesting that it be userfied in someone else's userspace.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I thought we would move to User:Duncgrah who created it with an explanatory note stating that we would gladly have the article published if the relevant sources were found and provided. I am however not convinced at the moment that User:Duncgrah will return to work on it. I don't really want to be seen as trying to 'flog a dead horse' over something that no-one probably wants to take (a sort of) ownership of. Perhaps a brief note on the users page saying that the article can be unelected and moved to their user space if they so wished, would surface? Unless people don't think it's worth doing that either? On a final note I have just sent Talk:OVPsim for WP:G8 as a tidy up exercise --wintonian ^talk 17:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, been away from wikipedia for a few weeks and come back to see the OVPsim page has gone. Can I get that page back, I think you suggest into my user area, so that I can try and improve on its content to something acceptable to all?Duncgrah (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I support Duncgrah's request, and would also support Incubation (see above). Widefox; talk 12:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

About last message

Okay I get it. I just don't like it when users on this site defy me or pressure me with irritating relentless comments on stuff that is wrong and not supposed to be.MandarinVengeance (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

TRCG again...

This time with 12.152.0.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), added to the sock investigation. This time I would like a CheckUser to go forward. Nate • (chatter) 03:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Salvidrim's talk page.
Message added 17:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I assume it may be someone caught in an autoblock but I'd appreciate some input from you as I am leaving and cannot fully investigate. Thanks! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ping again (unsure if you've got me watchlisted); user responded with the rangeblock explanation. I assume it was probably intended to prevent editing; seems to know a lot about the socking/master issue you pointed out. As an aside, have you considered setting up an unprotected talk page so that non-(auto)confirmed users can still have some way to contact you and/or troll you without disrupting your main talk page? Scratch that, it seems your main user talk page isn't protected? *shrugs* :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Charlie (2)

He has returned as 86.145.68.27 (talk · contribs) per this. He's disrupting anyway. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you re-block this IP, he returned to do the same. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. He has returned as 86.145.69.236 (talk · contribs) per his typical "Wikilove" messages. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Let There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song) [To save edit warring...]

How is it "completely" detailed?? It's one short sentence saying when it broke into the top 10, and one sentence about how when it charted at number 5, it spent each of the next four weeks rising by one position. Hardly a trajectory. I haven't written "The following week, it rose by one position to X" four times over. It's not like I have given a trajectory of the entire 3 months that it has been charting, I could understand I had (Not that I would do that anyway...) Look at the section, it's tiny. All I talk about is the debut, the top 10, the top 5 and the number one position. Nowhere does it say on WP:CHARTTRAJ that you can't mention these things. I'm surprised you're making an issue out of something as small as this... If anything, you've made it worse, because now all there is is the debut in mid Feb, and the peak at the end of May. There is nothing in between, it gives no insight to what happened in the time between mid Feb and end of May.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you want to include a chart trajectory. They are useless, and I see far too many of them. If you can find a reliable source (like a Billboard column) that discusses why this particular trajectory is notable or interesting, the would be sufficient reason to include it. As it stands it's just trivia, and it's exactly the kind of material WP:CHARTTRAJ advises against.—Kww(talk) 23:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? It's not a trajectory. You've made it worse by giving nothing at all. Between mid Feb and 1st June (as that is when this is actually dated), there is nothing. No information at all. Two small sentences, that's it. You can't write trajectories for an entire chart run in two small sentences. It would be a paragraph, easily.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the entry date. Or to get consensus on the talk page that this particular trajectory warrants discussion. Either way is fine.—Kww(talk) 23:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm reinstating the info. Editors can't comment on what they can't see, can they.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what talk pages are for. Put the material on the talk page.—Kww(talk) 23:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

NO. It was in the article originally, and only you have a problem with it. It stays in the article until its decided that it should be removed. Show me where it says otherwise. You are really winding me up.  — AARON • ^TALK 00:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's an obvious violation of guidelines. You don't get to include obvious guideline violations until a lot of people object. It's on the talk page. Let a discussion happen.—Kww(talk) 00:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

But it's not violating. You're supposed to leave things until a consensus is made. Notice how you are bending the rules. It's not me who is violating the 3RR...  — AARON • ^TALK 00:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think things are kept until consensus to remove is reached. Both WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD indicate that once an addition is reverted, it stays out until there's a consensus to include it. I've bent nothing, nor have I crossed WP:3RR. Note that the sole talk page comment agrees with me that it's a violation.—Kww(talk) 00:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I've seen or been told. No, you haven't crossed it, but you are also the one who told me that reverting three times is just as bad as crossing it and can be treated in the same way, so yes it is bending. Actually, half agrees. So you think that the section reads well missing out 3 months of info? I'm not saying to include all three months charting, but to include nothing at all is rather stupid.  — AARON • ^TALK 00:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Not what you've been told?" I'm not sure who told you what, but WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD have read that way forever. Generally, there's no reason to include chart trajectories. Peaks are sufficient. Eliminating my contributions to the talk page was well below the belt, by the way. If you want to add something to the discussion, feel free. Obliterating my comments will cause you trouble.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And you not explaining why I want it kept is fine though?  — AARON • ^TALK 00:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You are free to present your side of any discussion. If you had done what I originally asked and sought consensus at the talk page, your side of the discussion would have been presented first. I was careful to state my opinion as being my opinion.—Kww(talk) 00:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I started writing it before you did, if you haven't noticed I have presented both sides. You only included yours. Mine took longer to write. If it's your opinion, then it's a case of your opinion vs mine then, right? Nothing to do with rules or consensus?  — AARON • ^TALK 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus and guidelines always involve considered opinion. I'm of the opinion that your change is an obvious guideline violation. So is Lil-Unique99. You are of the opinion that by leaving some parts of the trajectory out, you aren't violating the guideline. That's what discussion is for: the "D" in WP:BRD.—Kww(talk) 00:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A trajectory is saying "The following week, it rose by X positions to number X" over and over and over again. Me saying when it debuted in the top 10 and the top 5 is not a trajectory. According to you, what constitutes it? Would saying "It spent six weeks inside the top 10 before reaching the peak" be trajectory? "It spent a month inside the top five before peaking at number one"? "It spent three months on the chart before reaching number one"? Vast majority of songs do not take over three months to hit #1, so that is why I included it, and according to WP:CHARTRAJ, it says it's okay.  — AARON • ^TALK 00:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said up there above somewhere, if you can find one industry source that says that this particular song has had an unusual trajectory, then I think that would be sufficient reason to include it. Is there any reason that we are talking on my talk page instead of in the discussion on the article talk page?—Kww(talk) 00:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need someone to write it when I provided the week by week archive?? And no.  — AARON • ^TALK 00:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Your love will be the death of me

Brexx, perhaps?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

MandarinVengeance

As per this request, see here, here, and here. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Kevin. I see it took you long enough to figure out who I was. So the trick is to edit while you are asleep. I'll see you in July. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.18.100 (talk • contribs)

He's soapboxing again, which directly ignores your previous warning. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 03:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Kww! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Emmelie de Forest

Changing the Pending Changes on Emmelie de Forest without consulting me, besides being pretty damn rude, has left the article open to some rather serious BLP violations. See article talk, the recent history of my talkpage, and this guy, just coming off his week-long block tomorrow if you wish to inform yourself further. I used PC2 per "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". That's policy as I expect you know, and I followed it. None of the disruption on the article has come from IPs or new users. None. PC1 is quite irrelevant. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC).

talkback

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

Bishonen | talk 21:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC).

UTRS request on hold

Hey Kww - Could you take a look at UTRS request #7609 when you have a chance? You sent it to the OPP queue, but I don't see that you ever listed it at WP:OPP to be checked. Thanks, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you log in to UTRS right now? You're right that I didn't realise that putting it on the OPP queue at UTRS didn't actually cause anything to happen, but now I can't fix it because I can't log in to see the IP.—Kww(talk) 16:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I can log in now, but it's a crapshoot as to whether I can connect at any given time these days. And it's very slooooooooow. I made the same mistake with the first few proxy/tor requests I handled; I thought it was an automated process until TParis clued me in. I would have fixed it for you but you have the request reserved so I can't make any changes to it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but this UTRS ticket is still attached to you and cannot be edited or closed. I was having trouble logging in for a while, possibly due to some updates that were made to the interface. I found that when I tried to login from my bookmarked link I was getting an error message, but when I used the link at UTRS (http://toolserver.org/~unblock/p/login.php) I was able to access the site. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In for the first time in over a week. At OPP.—Kww(talk) 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Queen of Sheba

Hi, Kevin, just to let you know that I disagree with your semi-protection of the article, particularly your comment in the protection log. If the IP (currently blocked along with the registered editor) had come back and reinstated their version, then I would have reverted it as a resumption of the edit war and semi'ed the article, but I would not have done it preemptively, accusing the IP of something that doesn't seem to be true on the face of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Chartbot

Is there any way to prevent Chartbot from replacing archived Billboard links? SnapSnap 23:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Pretty difficult. What's the value in keeping the old link that we know is never going to be restored? Isn't the real answer to archive the modern form of the link? I might be able to do that.—Kww(talk) 23:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean the modern form of the old link? What if I just used the archived links, since they were left untouched? SnapSnap 00:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It won't touch the archived links. If you use the archive directly as a source, Chartbot won't mess with it.—Kww(talk) 00:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem solved. SnapSnap 03:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit war with User:SuperVirtual

Hi, I am in the middle of an edit war with another editor and I need an admin to intervene. Firstly with the article Walk (Foo Fighters song). User:SuperVirtual keeps on adding information that is not directly supported by the source he is using. He is stating that the song was only released in Germany and quoting a linked source to the German iTunes page for the song. Apart from the fact that the song is available to down load pretty much in any country in the world, the source he is quoting does not specifically say that the song was released exclusively in Germany - and is therefore in breach of Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. I only speak a little German myself but can tell that the source does not give this information. Just to make sure I have requested, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Citing non-English sources, that the said user give a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.

OK, the next article, also a song by the same rock band is Arlandria (song), in which the same user is stating that the song was the second single from the affiliated album, in the United Kingdom. Again he quotes the UK iTunes page as a source, but again there is nothing in the source that says that the song was released as the second single in the UK, and is therefore again in breach of Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Further more I have given reliable news sources that say that the song is infact the third single: [1] and [2]. I have tried discussing this with the said user on both of the articles talk pages, yet he wants to turn it into an edit war. The user also appears to be Italian and has a poor grasp of the English language when attempting to discuss the issue. Please can you intervene. Many thanks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Quintus, is really necessary mentioned me in all users discussion? --SuperVirtual (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I reverted his edits because is not a valid motivation "be a Wikipedia reviewer", and also he done edit war in the same quantity as me. I explain my reasons to stay with my edits, and I explain also my motivations to keep the edits. --SuperVirtual (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Kww, if you look at the talk pages for the two articles concerned you will see that I have put my reasoning - to cut a long story short SuperVirtual is adding information that is not directly supported by the source. As mentioned in my post to you above - which I hope you will take into consideration. He does not seem to understand the Wikipedia legislation that I am forwarding in my argument: i.e: Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What both of you need to do is to understand that neither of your explanations excuses the edit-warring. Discuss it on the talk page of the articles in question. I agree that there are synthesis issues (which is a big part of why WP:BRD mandates that material that is removed isn't added again until there's a consensus reached), but both of you still resorted to edit-warring.—Kww(talk) 16:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Amanda_Bynes_iconic

Screaming Brexx to me...  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hilary Duff

Hi, the addition of an extra credit is not really a contentious addition. The rest of her filmography isn't sourced either and likely just based on IMDB. For instance I don't see any reference for her work in True Woman but I don't think it should be removed from the article (although a {{fact}} tag might be helpful. Garion96 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

D'uh. True Woman was the actual addition. :) I was just searching for an unsourced entry and mistakenly saw that one. So basically the addition was already in the article, the new editor just also added it to the filmography table. Garion96 (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Having an unacceptably sourced thing in one place is still arguably better than having it in two. It is, at best, trivial and meaningless, and, at worst, untrue. Shouldn't be in the article either way.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the very first role for an actress is particularly trivial or meaningless. It also wasn't untrue. It's a bit excessive but I added a cite for it. Garion96 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Vevo Awards

These are actual awards. See this billboard article. For further proof see: video of given awards being received (only one week ago).

With this in mind, surely these can be included in a page titled: List of awards and nominations received by...? 333cale (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that their advertising campaign doesn't include describing them as an "award", but that doesn't actually make them an award. It's actually a perfect example of the kind of thing that WP:SINGLENETWORK is about. VEVO does not measure the number of plays on a number of different venues (like Nielsen or Billboard's "Streaming" chart, for example). It simply counts the number of times videos are requested through outlets it controls, and it pulls a publicity stunt whenever the magic number of 100,000,000 is reached, all in order to publicize the existence of VEVO.

It's not an award, it's an ad campaign, and we should not be participating in ad campaigns.—Kww(talk) 00:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Matt LeBlanc

Wow, I had no idea Chace Watson and that IP (I'm assuming that is topsecret over at Commons?) were one and the same person (Oz steps also?). Anyway, I had intended on putting the 2013 image in the article except I had a busy weekend and MyCanon beat me to it. Just letting you know, I ain't MyCanon :P Cheers! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

RE

Hi. I write that "Edge of the Earth" is a promotional single (reported also by Discogs, the biggest database of music) and Earthh undid my edits because according to him there is also a digital single, but that version was never released. --SuperVirtual (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: SuperVirtual

I meant to just undo the edit, but I accidentally clicked the silly thank button. The1337gamer (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Badthanks.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:Badthanks.PNG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

IP address 84.138.55.94

Can you please check up on it? It constantly adds Scott Storch as a producer on "Cry Me a River" and per the official booklet of Justified, Storch is only credited as the songwriter and not producer. Tried to explain somethings to him but... — Tomíca^(T2ME) 08:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It is back again! :@ — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Promotional/buzz singles

Although promotional/buzz singles are usually not included in the singles chronology template of album articles (Born This Way, Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded and Red (Taylor Swift album) come to mind), certain editors believe it's okay to include them. Is there any particular guideline addressing the inclusion (or non-inclusion) of such singles? Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles isn't very enlightening either. SnapSnap 00:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't think there's a specific guideline, and don't think you will get very far trying to get one agreed upon. Used to be there was an extremely clear distinction: the buzz single had a very limited physical release targeted at radio stations and clubs. Once those limited number were given away, there were no more. With digital downloads and per-track sales, once the album has been released, how can you tell the difference between a download of the album track and a download of the promotional single? I sympathize with your cause, but I suspect it's a lost cause.—Kww(talk) 01:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, such definitions appear to be rather blurry nowadays. I do believe there should be a guideline or something, especially when a certain single is referred to as "promotional" or "buzz" by reliable sources. But yeah, probably not worth my time. SnapSnap 22:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 20:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Image edit conflicts

I had no idea that was even possible: File:We Can't Stop.jpg. Learn something new every day! Theopolisme (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok :)

Thanks for that advice! sorry! --Raúl Romero (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj discography

Some of the info you updated on the page are incorrect. Your additional info was added manually in an edit of the last recent edit. Note: Tonight I'm getting over you remix was not released as a single. It is also best to state the releases in one paragraph in the beginning of the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JACUBANHELADO (talk • contribs) 22:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Badthanks.PNG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Badthanks.PNG

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Having unfairly maligned you, now I'll ask for help

Could I get you to look at the edit requests (and especially, ahem, mine) at Talk:India Against Corruption? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Stooshe

Mariah returned as 86.165.48.180 (talk · contribs) per this compared with this. I don't know when Amazon.com became reliable for genres. Can you block the IP. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

S/he has returned as 217.43.164.79 (talk · contribs), per Jentina (album) and Stooshe pages. Thank you for the block. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, could you please protect Come & Get It (song)? Several IP editors continue changing "Gold" to "Platinum" when RIAA website says gold, the typical "sales = certifications" mistake. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

TRCG

On WMLW-TV and WFTS-TV, it looks like they're playing with their Sprint 3G connection tonight; a rangeblock looks impossible as it bounces higher with each reset. Put in a RFP for WMLW. Nate • (chatter) 05:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado

Hi. Thanks for your correction about Nelly Furtado. I am kind of a newbie here, and I am trying to understand how things work. You were right about last.fm. But you completely neglected the second reference placed (there two), which was from a newspaper, and signed by a journalist (in Portuguese), specifically stating she had Portuguese nationality (not just that she was Luso-Canadian). An official news in a 143 years old newspaper is not reliable and acceptable under wikipedia rules? I would like to add that actually she is coming to Portugal right now to participate in the country´s Nationality and Expatriate Communities Day celebrations, this 10th of June. It´s all over the news. If you want, I can send you the newspaper references to that as well. Thanks once again. Zee5050

The portion of the Portuguese source that states citizenship is just a word-for-word translation of the last.fm material.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It´s indeed very similar, but it´s actually not word-for-word. But I see your point. In a situation like this, how can we distinguish who started saying what though? How do we know that it wasn´t last.fm or others that copied it from the legitimate newspaper news? I could be wrong, but is it for us to decide and rule where did a credited journalist from a credited newspaper get his material? Wouldn´t it cause chaos on wikipedia if we all were to decide based on our own personal opinion on how reliable is a journalist or a newspaper? Thank you again. Zee5050

Publication date. Your article is from 2011, but the Last.fm material is from 2009. I can dig up the exact edit that inserted it again if you want: I had to research it before when this issue came up before.—Kww(talk) 15:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. I also see there are many issues regarding this matter already. I think one needsw to understand that her being Portuguese is just how it would naturally happen, that´s how Portuguese normally get their citizenship (by parent descent). Just as Canadians usually get it by place of birth. But more than anything, that´s how she defines herself. I see that the issue for you and others apparently seems to be where to find an official declaration of Portuguese citizenship of hers, but this is something that would naturally be absurd for a national of a country to say, right? No one can find any source whatsoever stating specifically that she is a 'Canadian citizen' either, and no one ever demanded such proof for her to be shown on wikipedia as Canadian. I actually searched, and nowhere on the internet can it be found that she is a 'Canadian citizen', only that she is 'Canadian'. Equally, we can find inumerous sources of her saying she is Portuguese, but not that she is a 'Portuguese citizen'. Shouldn´t this be treated having in consideration what she expresses about it, and also in equal terms of certification demand regarding both countries' nationality? She repeatedly declares herself as Portuguese in interviews in many, many occasions. Here´s an interview where she talks about how it is to be a Portuguese in Canada, and her coming to Portugal to visit as a kid: . You have another one here with her stating she is equally both Canadian and Portuguese: . I can get you more if you want. I mean, it´s not hard at all to find her declaring herself as Portuguese, and in a context that has nothing to do with her ethnicity, but her actual link to the country. If she declares herself both Portuguese and Canadian, who are we to say no, right? I don´t see the difference, honestly. I will not bother you any more, but please reasonably think about it. I was reading past posts, and I have seen you seem to have a very, very strong personal position on this issue, but I believe in the end this should all only be about searching for the truth, and having demanding criteria of proof that do not discriminate between countries (or the artist herself), right? I do thank you for your enthusiasm, dedication and work here on wikipedia, that appears to be outstanding and no one can deny. Zee5050 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nathan

Hi, I'm sending this to Bwilkins, Kww, and Spinningspark. I've just seen Nathan's explanation of why he reacted as he did. I was shocked when I saw his response to Spinningspark, but given his circumstances it's completely understandable that he'd be operating on a short fuse. Would one of you reconsider his unblock request? If editing in a coffee shop is the only time things feel normal, a week is a long time to lose that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Marc Mysterio

I'm his photographer. I heard the quotes last night on the wrestling. I already know its going to be reported in the morning. Whereas he has a huge charity collaboration being released tomorrow, I'd respectfully ask you to refrain from edits until Tuesday on that page.

I see your a good editor, and mean well.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knicksnyc (talk • contribs) 02:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You have been reported. Please Cease & Desist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Darkness_Shines_reported_by_User:Mrt3366_.28Result:_No_action.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knicksnyc (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This was handled via WP:BOOMERANG. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You may want to see [[3]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

French singles chart archives

Hey. Out of interest, do you happen to know if there's a French singles chart archive for positions prior to 1994? Although lescharts.com is very accurate and of proven reliabilty, it only goes back to this 1994, and the archive on the SNEP website only goes back to July 2001: I've been trying to search for Pink Floyd single positions to add here, and most of them occurred before '94. I spotted this at InfoDisc, which isn't listed here, claiming to list the single positions from August 1955 to December 2009, in a similar layout to their albums archive. However, whilst the accuracy of InfoDisc's albums archive seems to be perfect when the positions it lists for certain albums are identical at both InfoDisc and lescharts.com (see Nelly for an example) the singles positions do not match at all in many cases in both archives (in Pink Floyd's case, compare "Take It Back" and "High Hopes"), and even seem to list positions for songs not released as singles at all, in the days before digital downloads made this possible (see "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" and "Pigs on the Wing", as well as their chart dates). As a result, I seriously doubt its reliability.

If you know if InfoDisc's singles information is reliable or not, or if there is a better archive for positions before 1994 that I have missed, I'd greatly appreciate your help. If not, I'm sorry to have bothered you. Keep up the fine work! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with you asking, but no, I don't have an answer. In general, most chart positions for older songs are only found in books, and I don't know one for French charts. I believe the discrepancy between Lescharts and InfoDisc comes from publishing different singles charts, but I don't know the details.—Kww(talk) 16:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

American Dad!

Thank you for getting involved in the edit dispute there. I'd welcome your input at the ensuing Talk page discussion, especially given that AD86 has been engaging in personal attacks since they opened the topic (and apparently are singling me out), but understand if you don't wish to get involved. Thanks again. Doniago (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've opened an ANI filing specifically regarding AD86's conduct at the American Dad! talk page. Your input would be welcome. Doniago (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Explaining rules to admin

Kww, evidently, you're unclear on Wikipedia policy despite being an administrator. But when another editor has some suspicion that a revert will lead to edit warring (as was clear here [4] where I reverted the information as factual with a source because it was removed as untrue), it is up to that individual who knows full well his actions are contentious to initiate the discussion on the talk page and refrain from reverting otherwise it is belligerent and acting in opposition to policy. Doniago has engaged in similar behaviors of this nature in the past on American Dad related articles, one of which he even had to revert himself on his own edit because it was unconstructive (as shown here [5] and here [6] ). Since you seem to be unclear on Wikipedia, despite being an administrator, I've copy and pasted the following and bolded it for you, located here:

Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is, however, called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page). A BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is used on many pages where changes might often be contentious. Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by their having already been carried out, are inappropriate. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sigh! Admin, please thoroughly look over the issues before bombarding in and with aggressive remarks so you can make more informed moves please. I am not the one to have made the edit. The edit was first made last year in May 2012 by User:TBrandley (as shown here: [7] ). It was removed earlier today as being "untrue" and I simply sourced it as being true with a source. Shortly thereafter Doniago, who has embarked contentious editing behavior with myself in the past as shown above, removed it as being trivia on basis that "the film wiki project discourages tv ratings" while this is a television show. Furthermore, Doniago is not even using the television wiki project to support himself because it's not stating it there, so the user is bending the rules. When I explained this to him, he said he doesn't see "why everything on the film wiki project article can't apply to the television wiki project article." And I said by his logic, we might as well remove the wiki project television show article. The user can't even come up with a legitimate basis to remove the edit and is using policies that don't even apply to television show articles. He's engaged in similar behavior in the past as shown above. Moreover, the tv ratings are apart of the Family Guy article which is a GA article but now Doniago insists on how he's going to question the reviewer about his decision. You didn't even look into the matter before engaging in this behavior as shown here [8] and you're supposed to be an administrator of whom Wikipedia is entrusting with tools to handle matters reasonably. This concerns me, administrator! AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I misread the history. Note made on article talk page.—Kww(talk) 22:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. =) AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Nathan Johnson

In light of the continued discussion on Nathan Johnson's talkpage, I have posted to ANI requesting review on the unblock request. Please feel free to comment on the thread, here. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Kevin, as much as I'd sometimes like to block you (or maybe just key your car), I appreciate your comment as well as your sentiment on that ANEW report. Cheers! Drmies (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• BTW, considering this edit, I'm sure they're the IP as well, but no doubt that is taken care of by the autoblock, if I understand that correctly. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• That IP isn't under an autoblock right now.—Kww(talk) 05:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Let's keep an eye on it. Say, how do you get a Dutch "citefout" notice on your talk page? Should I tag this page as {{not english}} ? Drmies (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Set your interface language to Dutch, and you too will leave a little trail of them whenever you visit a talk page where people thought it would be fun to include a reference but not a reflist.—Kww(talk) 05:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

77.31.71.153

Hello kww, you reverted several editions by the ip user, but i don't think the image themselves added by him are copyvio. --Puramyun31 (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

So what can I do to add the celebrity images? actually their original versions are legitimately taken and uploaded by this commons user, also some of the celebrity articles what you reverted such as this currently have no alternative images of them. --Puramyun31 (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for your answer. Goodbye. --Puramyun31 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Chace is probably back as Special:Contributions/Vevofan. Nymf _{talk to me} 15:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Singular / Plural

Ummm, general usage is "they reside" and, in the same way, "the couple reside". In this case "the couple resides" seems clumsy, English rules are complex and subject to so many exceptions. DesmondW (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's true that English is complicated, but "couple" remains a singular noun. "The couple reside" isn't even an acceptable alternative: it's wrong in any dialect of English I'm familiar with. "The couple resides" is correct.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your revert

There was no "removal" and an explantion was given. Please be careful about your wording in edit summaries. YRC's post was posted twice to the thread. Since he asked for it to be in a separate section on his talk page, all I did was move the answers to the duplicate to the appropriate section. I would like to move them again. OK? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You had no edit summary on your edit, so there was no explanation given. When you move text, please do it in one edit, not a chain of several edits without edit summaries. I've removed the duplication.—Kww(talk) 19:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually did type "Moving dupes to section below", but apparently goofed it up. Sorry about that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: File:SonyPlayStation4.jpg

The image qualifies for fair use as it meets all fair use criteria. Addressing each one individually:

1) There IS no free equivalent that would have the same or higher encyclopedic value and it cannot be created until the console is in the hands of the general public rather than being seen by the lucky few at E3!

2) If anything having this image on the article will be BETTER for everyone as it provides a much better representation of the console than any free media for it currently out there.

3a) The image is only being used in the infobox

3b) The image is only being used on Playstation 4.

4) This image was published here.

5) This image EASILY meets the content standards and is very much encyclopedic!

6) The image meets Wikipedia:Image use policy.

7) The image will be used on Playstation 4 once this whole kerfuffle is over and Masem stops reverting the addition of it.

8) The presence of the image DOES significantly increase the readers understanding of the product by providing a clear and UNOBSTRUCTED visual reference.

9) The image will only be used in the article namespace.

10a) The source is readily identified.

10b) The provision for fair use is listed in the description.

10c) The fair use rationale is unique, simple and easy to understand.

I hope this is enough to get the image back into the article. Thanks for taking the time to read this! PantherLeapord (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not even close. WP:NFCC#1 isn't about being the same quality, it's about being of sufficient quality. Given that the appearance of the product isn't a particularly important aspect of the product, I think your logic for WP:NFCC#8 is pretty dicey as well.—Kww(talk) 06:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As for #1: How can this image NOT be of sufficient quality? And as for #8: Like it or not; there are NOT going to be any free images of this that have the same quality as the fair use one until someone takes a free picture of it WITHOUT the glass case in the way! PantherLeapord (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The substitute image is of sufficient quality. Not as good, but sufficient.—Kww(talk) 14:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesse R. Waugh

Hi Kww, I suspect that all of the IPs participating in Jesse R. Waugh are socks. Should I formally report them? None have ever participated in an AfDs before all simply claim obvious notably and surprise or outrage at the nomination. Cheers--I am One of Many (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll investigate, and let you know what I decide. I'm about to leave the house, so it will be a few hours.—Kww(talk) 16:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No rush. I just wanted to let you. Thanks.--I am One of Many (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Assistance

Are you able to fix a little mess I've made? I've nominated ...And Justice for All (album) for GA article, but accidentally I've put myself as a reviewer. Thanks.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesse R. Waugh AfD

I suspect that those IPs who are not SPAs are the same person using proxy servers. Is there any way to check for that? The style of their comments is pretty blatantly similar. Voceditenore (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Care to show your math?

[9].

I'm sorry but counting up the votes I get 18 "unblock" and 19 "opposes". I might be off a vote or two, but that's no where near 2:1 and could have very well turned around.

Am I missing something? Volunteer Marek 22:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's see: Retain ban:

1. TenOfAllTrades
2. Nomoskedasticity
3. Dominus Vobisdu
4. Rockfang
5. A Quest For Knowledge
6. Kww
7. Prioryman
8. Andrew Lenahan
9. Binksternet
10. Roscelese
11. Alanscottwalker
12. Lord Sjones23
13. DHeyward
14. Drmargi
15. Hobit
16. RolandR
17. Colonel Warden
18. Rivertorch
19. Thumperward
20. MarnetteD
21. Rickyrab
22. EdJohnston
23. Cactus.man
24. Rschen7754
25. MrX
26. Dayewalker
27. Taroaldo

Lift ban:

1. John Cline
2. Andreas
3. SPhilbrick
4. The Devil's Advocate
5. Count Iblis
6. Black Kite
7. Eric Corbett
8. regentspark
9. My very best wishes
10. Dirk Beetstra
11. Only in death does duty end
12. Collect
13. Boing! said Zebedee
14. Begoon

Yes, I would say that you missed something.—Kww(talk) 22:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

...and what happened to:

1. Andy Dingley
2. Drmies
3. Pete
4. Blackmane
5. Giansnowmen
6. Peridon

? Did they just not show up on your version of Wikipedia? Perhaps in the future you should refrain from closing those discussions which involve complex math, like being able to count to more than 10. Volunteer Marek 00:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I missed Andy, Drmies, Giant Snowman, Blackmane, and Peridon. That's part of the problem with a discussion that spans multiple days and multiple subsections, with some editors' support comments being made as replies to other editors' comments. Pete did not support an unblock, nor did he oppose it: he said he could support one given some sign of fundamental change within YRC, but he did not indicate that he believed he had seen such a sign. That brings it to 27:19, or roughly 3:2 opposed.

If you want to reopen the discussion, have fun. I'll just point out that if you wanted to even approach numeric consensus, you'd need to get to 3:2 the other direction (60%). That would mean of the next 22 people issuing an opinion, you'd need to have unanimous support for an unblock (getting you to 27:41, or 60.3% in favor). As for the "strength of argument" method for determining consensus, I'm hard put to see how that would apply. This discussion was split between "it's hopeless", "we shouldn't give up on anybody", and "we can always reblock later if necessary". How can you decide one of those arguments is stronger than another?—Kww(talk) 01:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Changed the hat, invited reopen in the summary of my change.:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=559808955

Italo disco

Hi Kevin, we have this article Italo disco which I strongly believe should be about a term rather than a genre. The main editor of the article insists on believing that it's a genre, not a term. This term was invented to refer to Italian based (mostly English sung) synthpop/new wave dance projects of the '80s. I was wondering if you'd have any knowledge about the topic and would like to comment in this thread that I opened up. By the way, most of the article is unsourced, and has been tagged as unreferenced since 2011.--Harout72 (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Singlechart

Can you take a look at the singlechart usage on Sweater Weather and tell me what's wrong? It's saying that the band's name is illegal. NYSMy talk page 22:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Such a new band that the templates didn't include the name to id translation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:BillboardID/T&diff=559938188&oldid=559046786 fixed it.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. NYSMy talk page 09:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

question

A SaudiNet IP has returned. I remember this one, 77.31.127.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and wasn't sure how you guys knew who it is. I don't want to accuse anyone of anything though, but *coughseemytalkpagecough* the poor english just seems really familiar. Should I not worry about it? If someone's too lazy to log in, is that still sock puppetry? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You guys are frighteningly fast. Nevermind! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Temp unblock

Please note that I've unblocked ImtheNeonLight (talk · contribs) to allow him to rename. Intent is to re-block to your same settings 1) when the rename request is submitted 2) 24 hours passes with no action, or 3) he does anything other than request an unblock. Will monitor. Kuru (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For the blocking of Freechemistrytextbook. In the space of 5 minutes, he's managed to rack up a whole lot of controversy over several project pages. Kevin12xd (contribs) 16:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:American Dad!". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 13:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Rusted Auto Parts

I do admit that he has a weakness against the third-revert rule and sometimes being civil. I told him off that personally. But I do feel like pointing out that he is not always a bad contributor though. He's a good updater on articles related to notable death etc. It's sad to see him go because he really does love to contribute. I feel that a weekly block or something to just let him cool off might be better. Also I am hoping that he would promise something that he hopefully will keep (that I recommended to him). I might just need to be there to probably warn him that he goes too far. He might just listen to me and I am willing to do that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at WT:NFC.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am proposing a change. Please read the description of the RFC, I changed it to show the change clearly. I was proposing to change "or could be created" to "or could be created reasonably". Surfer43 (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Dancing_with_molly

Not sure of who this is... but it's a sock of someone who was previously blocked. I know there was one user who kept coming back with a username that contained a song lyric.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Brexx? Just blocked Hashtag beautiful a couple days ago. --auburnpilot talk 02:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse the intrusion...I went ahead and blocked. It looked WP:DUCKish enough for me. --auburnpilot talk 02:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC Help

I am trying to set up a request for comment on the notability of schools. I use the GNG for WP:ORG which states "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is" we also require WP:RS to verify this. Unfortunately often at AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Moresby International High School ) is a good example of the types of arguments made. I personally think this is crap and I want to get more discussion on it. the RFC page is a little confusing so I was wondering if you could help me or point me to someone who can help me set it up? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I can help, but first let me try to talk you out of it. First off, you are absolutely right: there's no reason to have articles about 99.9% of high schools. That said, you will never get a consensus to delete them, no matter how hard you try. Even if by blind luck you manage to get an RFC set up that seems to set up some kind of restrictive guideline, it will be ignored at AFD and the articles will be kept. It's pointless to try, and will gain you nothing but frustration and heartache. Still want to try it?—Kww(talk) 03:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Then the policy should be changed. The policy as is states there has to be notability shown and proved for any organization. There needs to be a check and balance on things, I can certainly understand a blanket csd rule, however AFD's are {ideally) decided on policy and not votes so if all a person is it's a secondary school keep there should be a valid rationale to back it up. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. To keep sanity here requires the ability to use doublethink without suffering cognitive dissonance. I know I'm coming off as a smart-ass, and I apologize. I've railed about this and the companion problem of tiny little geographic specks where all we have is an approximate location on a map. It did me no good, and no one wants to try to figure out precisely why those two items are an exception to every policy we have and codify it. Like I said, I'll help with the mechanics of an RFC if you want me to, but I still advise against it.—Kww(talk) 03:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts and it may well just be a moral victory but if we can use that discussion to at least prod an admin to think about the substance of the article rather then the number of keeps or deletes we will have at least gained a little. I couldn't see the sarcasm btw which means it was cleverly disguised or I was just too dense lol. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Getting kind of busy right now. I'll reply with some instructions and guidance in the morning.—Kww(talk) 03:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok no problem Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

First, work on the text for me.

1. Write a neutral description of the issue. Some paragraph that lays out the basic of the issue: high schools have separate articles when no one can demonstrate that they are covered in independent sources. This needs to be extremely neutral in tone, and no one should be able to read it and have any idea what you think of the practice.
2. Write your opinion of the topic. Some paragraph that expresses how you feel.

Once you get those done, we can fold it into RFC format.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to take your advice, I appreciate the help but right now I really don't have the emotional capital to invest in a losing battle. It is still somewhat galling but it is what it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Drake Bell

Hi there. I noticed that you recently made a major edit on List of songs recorded by Drake Bell. I think what you did was great (removing all unsourced material), but I personally think that was just a little too big, because most of the unsourced songs that are not on any album actually do exist. Would you like to maybe reconsider reverting your edit and help out adding references to those songs that you removed? Thanks! JaciFan 00:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaciFan (talk • contribs)

Blocking Is Ineffective

I was going to post this at AN/I, but I have been trying to avoid drama as much as I can. Perhaps you forget how blocking him goes...

• 1. An admin blocks.
• 2. Within minutes there is an unblock from one of many, many admins.
• 3. He calls for the blocking admin's miserable, pointed little head. Threatens to leave all us morons behind with this horrid mess of a 'pedia unless the admin is stripped of all adminly powers, pronto.
• 4. The blocking admin doesn't get desysopped... and he doesn't leave as threatened.
• 5. Nothing changes! We do the "hokey pokey" instead. Again.

As Yogi Berra said: "It's like déjà vú all over again." So please don't block. Because it is futile. Doc talk 08:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• More importantly, Eric had already clearly said he wouldn't revert again on his talk page, so it would have been abusive. As for "idiot", they were calling each other names and it was on a talk page, there was no single guilty party here. When experienced editors act like children, sometimes you have to just let them fight it out among themselves. The biggest mistake was filing the ANI, which took a simple disagreement and turned it into a shoving match. That should be apparent if you actually read all the information and follow the entire course of the event. It isn't about futility, it is about fairness and the damage done when we jump to blocking in situations where there are better alternatives. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• • @Dennis: Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. That's why it keeps happening again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • What does make a problem go away then? Obviously blocking doesn't work. Maybe something else does, which is what I've been working on. Putting all personal feeling aside, blocking when someone is equally rude and had pledged to stop reverting would have been gratuitous and more disruptive in the long run. The goal is to find solutions, not retribution. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The solution is to reblock Eric every time it happens, block every admin that unblocks him, take them to arbcom, and get them desysopped. Unblocking Eric Corbett demonstrates that someone is unfit to be an admin. I don't care if Eric says that he will be nice about a particular issue on a particular day, because he will do it again the next day. This issue will not stop until he's gone, and that's not going to happen until the sensible admins act en masse and take care of the admins that enable this problem to continue.—Kww(talk) 14:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I've been working with Eric for a while now and I would argue that the signal to noise issue has improved dramatically in that time. Of course, it is my nature to engage an editor rather than block where I see a potential benefit for Wikipedia, as I do here. Like I said, I've spoken out publicly against his actions, and I certainly have in private as well. I've never unblocked him (although I did make the final indef block of the Malleus account, ironically), but think the better solution is trying to work with editors to get them to change their methods, as I have (although you can't see those off-wiki efforts). Hanging the threat of block over their head isn't helpful, and I would argue that threatening to take anyone who unblocks him to Arb is uncivil and designed to have a chilling effect. You are just saying "I want Eric blocked and will do everything I can to make that happen and punish anyone who gets in the way". You shoot yourself in the foot here and clearly demonstrate an unhealthy involvement and bias. Meanwhile, I will continue to engage and continue to persuade him to stop the occasional name calling, which I might note, is much more rare nowadays. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
          • It's neither bias nor involvement, Dennis. That's a method of invalidating admin's opinions one at a time as they try to deal with a disruptive editor, and the reason that WP:INVOLVED specifically excludes admins that deal with an editor only on an administrative basis. I have no bias against Eric: I simply don't believe that good contributions buy the right to behave badly. If there were an editor that turned out three featured articles a day and called someone a retard once a week, I would argue for banning that editor as well. That I have no tolerance for this form of misbehaviour does not speak to bias. What I am saying is not "I want Eric blocked...". I'm saying that admins that enable misbehaviour on the basis of good contributions do Wikipedia a disservice. We only have a few dozen really badly behaved editors on the project, and getting rid of all of them, regardless of contribution level, is the best step we can take. It's frightening to me that I'm accused of bias against Eric when I only wish to hold him to the same standard that I hold any abusive editor.—Kww(talk) 15:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
            • You and I agree on many things, but not this. I consider you involved based on these and previous statements and I'm very convinced that many other admin would agree. I would suggest that you if ever thinks he needs blocking, you should take it to ANI for a community decision. You are smart enough to know that if you ever blocked him after the things you have said, it would be an ugly, drama filled affair at ANI afterwards and you know this could be be avoided. If he ever gets a block, it is doubtful that I will be the one to unblock him, but it would be very unwise for you to be pushing the buttons in regards to Eric. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
              • I'm certainly not quick to do it, although I feel I would be within the letter of policy by doing so. I hope you recognize that for you to unblock him in the event that he gets blocked again would be even more problematic, as you certainly do have a favourable involvement with him.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                • • (edit conflict) You misread my actions, as have others. I just spoke out against Kiefer's block at ANI and on his talk page. Some mistakenly think he is my "friend", but he is neither friend not enemy to me. I just spoke out for Russavia being thrown on the "ban" list. I certainly am not his friend. Just as I spoke out against the block of PumpkinSky two days ago. On more than one occasion as of late, I have spoken out against crat/admin when proper process or expectations weren't followed. There is nothing I have ever said for Eric that I have not said for another Wikipedia editor, and if you look at the totality of my involvement with "bits" on this website, it is very clear what my objective is: to insure equity in dealing with editors and take a close look at how we act as admin. To try to insure we are really objective and fair. Why do you think I have patrolled ANI regularly for a couple of years and one of the first to speak out on admin issues, pro and con? I can also point to discussions where Eric has chewed on my ass, or voted against me in discussion including my own RfA. I get along with Eric because we have mutual respect, not because we agree on everything. We disagree as much as we agree, but it does prove that someone can get along with someone they disagree with. I understand that you misread my objectives, but that is what it is, misreading. I would argue that I am the most active admin in getting Eric to compromise and comply with community expectations. A string of blocks had the opposite effect. I decided to actually get to know him, look at the stuff he does that no one seems to notice, talk with him about issues privately, work on a few articles together, and actually pave a positive path forward. I would argue that my methods have produced much better results than threatening him and threatening any admin that unblocks him. I've just chosen to use a carrot instead of a stick. And no, I would not block someone for calling another an idiot (PumpkinSky was quickly unblocked after "pompous ass" was considered not blockworthy, btw), nor for 4RR when they already said they won't revert again. We are not the civility police. Sometimes, experienced editors are dicks to each other. We don't have to inject our admin bit in every bloody situation. THAT is disruptive, more so than calling someone a "pompous ass" or an "idiot". And if you really have been paying attention over the last 6-9 months, then surely you have noticed positive things. Not perfection, but measurable change. Stand back far enough to view the big picture and tell me, which method will create a better encyclopedia? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                    • The method that creates the best encyclopedia is to quickly and efficiently rid ourselves of disruptive editors, without extensive counseling, mentoring, and behavioural management. When someone doesn't demonstrate the ability to follow our behavioural or editorial guidelines, we need to eliminate them early in the process, not after months of anguish and effort. And yes, we are the behavioural police: that's our role as admins: not content creation (which we may do as editors), but looking at editors behaviour and dealing with it whenever one of them fails to follow our behavioural policies (of which not being dicks to each other is one of the most basic).—Kww(talk) 15:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                      • Sorry, but you are gravely mistaken. If that was the case, then we wouldn't need escalating blocks, the first would be indef and insta-ban. You have a very negative view of human nature, friend, one that I do not share. Humans are not so disposable. To imply that mentoring and counseling are worthless shows you have lost touch. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                        • I didn't say "abandon them on the first screwup", which is what you seem to have read. I've unblocked editors and worked with them to be productive when there were signs of hope. With an editor that constantly misbehaves the same way, there's a time to quit, and it's well before the six month mark.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
                          • I see hope. I can point to partial success. I clearly see a net positive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Re the fifth post up: Kww, it's frightening to me to see you lose your rag to the point where you'll say "The solution is to reblock Eric every time it happens, block every admin that unblocks him, take them to arbcom, and get them desysopped. Unblocking Eric Corbett demonstrates that someone is unfit to be an admin." Anybody who started blocking admins wholesale for unblocking a particular user would soon be blocked themselves, and you or whoever did it would then hardly be in a position to take them to arbcom and "get" them desysoped. "Get"? What's that, delusions of grandeur, or just your dream of how Wikipedia ought to work? I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I can not believe I voted for you for arbcom. That'll teach me to be more careful. Bishonen | talk 15:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC).
          • It's not something that I'm about to take as a unilateral action, Bishonen, but this deadlock needs to be broken somehow. Arbocom's afraid to act and there's always a handy admin to unblock him regardless of how poorly he behaves. I'm sorry you feel so disappointed in me: my campaign was clearly a campaign of applying all policies equally to everyone without favouritism, and my stance on this issue is a fairly predictable consequence of that perspective.—Kww(talk) 15:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You, Kww, are likely a monster that has been safely caged. You are not a vested contributor with a one-way pass. So why not just piss off, and never consider any of this? You have been strongly warned. Doc talk 07:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me! Spitfire (LeAnn Rimes album)

I have been working MY A** off on that page not Walter Görlitz and you're going to block ME from editing it? I don't think so! He needs to be blocked from coming onto the page and starting the crap not an IP address that has done pretty much all the work on the page. THAT IS UNFAIR AND WHY CAUSE I WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING AND MAKING THE PAGE LOOK GOOD AND HE WANTED TO TAKE OVER OH HELL NO! THE WORLD DON'T WORK LIKE THAT SO GET WALTER Görlitz AND BLOCK HIM FROM EDITING NOT THE ONE WHO DOES ALL THE WORK ON THE PAGE!

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at 184.58.19.105's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re Self Control other versions

Fine - when time permits I will restore the list with the versions for which sources are available. It's not a question of my "wanting it back": comprehensive information on various versions should as much as reasonably possible be featured in any article on a song, and is more likely to interest interested parties than the minutia of the formats of release for the versions discussed in the body of this article. And I honestly fail to see why the lack of sources justifies deletion rather than tagging with the "unreferenced secton" template - if that template shouldn't be used in this instance then what is it for? The "Dealing with unsourced material" section of WP:CITE states: "If an article is unreferenced, you can tag it with the unreferenced template, so long as it is not nonsensical or a biography of a living person, in which case request admin assistance. If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the citation needed template, which will add an inline tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. If a claim is doubtful and harmful, remove it from the article. You may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless it is very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to the talk page either. Use your common sense. All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed from articles and talk pages immediately." That's Wikipedia's stated policy on "Dealing with unsourced material". And there's nothing to support instant deletion of material such as the Other versions section of the Self Control article.--Cherrylimerickey (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed": however as WP:CITE explains in a case such as the Other versions section of the Self Control article - which is not the biography of a living person - not being sourced, resolving the issue via tagging as unreferenced section should have been attempted prior to removal. Again - if that template shouldn't be used in this instance then what is it for?--Cherrylimerickey (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you may confusing what editors have the option of doing versus what they are allowed to do. Removing material without tagging it may not be "nice" or "best practice", but it is permissible. If it bothers you, I would recommend contacting the removing editor or starting a dialog on the article's Talk page; perhaps they are amenable to reinserting the material with the appropriate template, but as near as I can tell you haven't approached them about it. DonIago (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ghost Protocol

Again. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Images question

Hi Kww, why can't we readd the pictures that were added before by a 'block evading editor'? I mean if the images are of good quality and under a good license, what's the problem? ;) Cheers, Sofffie7 (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Does it means we are not allowed to add a possible good picture that a blocked editor added in the past, only to prevent him from evading his block? I don't understand lol. If you check my history, you'll see I had started readding the 'controversial' pictures on Owen Wilson, Jessica Szohr, Rose Byrne, and Vince Vaughn... You might as well undo them. I won't mind, though I think it's a bit stupid not using recent pictures because a bad editor/IP used them before. --Sofffie7 (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Ps: as I didn't know whether you were watching my page, I replied here.

List of songs recorded by Drake Bell

Hello

Why You corrupting?   Most of the songs of Drake Bell is not recorded (yet) But that does not mean we have to erase everything. If you switch the recent edits, you will see that my version (13:12, 24 June 2013) is a precise and clean from unnecessary additions. I would like you to return it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.120.189.242 (talk)

my edit warring?! You really looked at recent edits? I'm the one who deleted the unnecessary additions (and sometimes erroneous) of JaciFan Feel free to look at my User talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.120.189.242 (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

whatever dude..

I'm not going to argue with a 50 years old how edited playlists of forgotten child stars

I just tried to improve the list because i was fan of this singer as a kid (what you cant say..) But if you dont want to I really dont care...

I have better things to do46.120.189.242 (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ARUBA Page: like I said, van der Sloot was a DUTCH LOCAL........why delete? Dennyboy34 (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparent mistake

>>Don't know what you were trying to do, but I'm pretty sure this wasn't it.—Kww(talk) 22:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)<<

Of course - do forgive me: as far as I was aware I was just updating the Other Versions section & couldn't figure out why every time I previewed I got an error over there being no Reflist. I honestly have no idea how virtually the entire page got blanked: as far as I'm aware I only accessed that one section for editing & never even looked at the balance of the article. But I don't mean to abdicate responsibility. Is my face red!--Cherrylimerickey (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Some assistance please

Hi there. I noticed you blocked User:Bordoxx as a sock of User:Boljom, both edit warriors at Unification Church and related articles. Please also do something about User:Borovv. The similar editing style and user name gives me the impression this is the same editor. If that is not enough, see this topic ban that the user is constantly violating.--Atlan (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Socks at AIV

Hi Kww. I don't remember which report this was and I went through my recent contributions and I don't think I commented anything related to "Refer to SPI" at AIV recently. Can you give me the user/IP name of the person reported so I can look over what I did again? Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 02:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah that's fine, I was a little confused since I've seen a bunch of reports since then and I couldn't remember which one that was. And thanks for the clarification, I'll be sure to keep that in mind in the future. Best, Spencer^T♦C 02:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Protection of Vertigo (Olivia Lewis song)

Hi Kww,

You protected Vertigo (Olivia Lewis song) in 2010 due to an SPI on Xtinadbest. The archive shows that the last SPI report was April of 2012, I was wondering if you would consider lifting the protection as the need appears to be stale. Regards, Crazynas ^t 18:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ping? Crazynas ^t 08:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Carey 14th album

Hi Kww,

Why do you refuse to let people change the title of Mariah's new album back to Fourteenth Studio Album? She herself confirmed that "The Art of Letting Go" is only a song title and not the album name, as did Roger Friedman with her label Island Def Jam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.5.144 (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That source wouldn't do for anything related to the title: not specific enough. None of my reverts on "The Art of Letting Go" were related to the quality of edits, it was just housekeeping as the page was being edited by a banned editor.—Kww(talk) 00:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Article at AfC

I saw on Matt723star's talk page about the issue with the article that he keeps recreating which you were involved in. He created Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/The Most Popular Girls in School if it still an issue. SL93 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

/* Elizabeth Grant correct D.O.B */

Correction made to D.O.B Elizabeth Grant was born June 21, 1985. She logged three copyrights with the United States copyright office. Two made in 2005 and one made in 2012. You have to submit your D.O.B as a copyright claim is a legal government document and Elizabeth Grant submitted her date of birth: go to http://cocatalog.loc.gov and search for; grant elizabeth woolridge select 'search by' option of name. Wikipedia is source for accurate and factual information and the source is a copyright government agreement. Deneuve15 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comments at WP:AN

Well said. — Scott • talk 17:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For this talk page post, which is probably the only thing that prevented me from retiring. SamX‧☎‧✎ 17:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer

Is that a good block, if that IRC log is accurate? Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If I presume the IRC log is accurate, Kiefer's response is still over the top. At worst, the IRC log is a tasteless joke between two people about a third whom they dislike. Kiefer's is a direct physical threat combined with a direct insult.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but could it not be argued that Kiefer's reply is merely a threat of violence in reply to one? Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It could certainly be argued. He can try to persuade the community that that's the case, but I don't buy it.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer's is a direct physical threat combined with a direct insult - gee, the way I see it, Kiefer's response was a fully normal response, though a bit of a tasteless joke, to what appears to be either a) threats of physical violence and insults, or possibly b) two sneaky admins conniving in how to get Kiefer in trouble. Have you had contact with them?

Regardless. This needs to be reviewed at ANI. And I this must be like the twentieth time in recent history where I am simply amazed that you are allowed anywhere the block button Kww, or the other admin tools for that matter. Too bad we don't desysop for outright and obvious stupidity.Volunteer Marek 00:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw no reason that such an obvious block required community discussion, Marek. It never ceases to amaze me how little self-control people here have when it comes to communication.—Kww(talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact that you "saw no reason" is exactly part of the problem here. It never ceases to amaze me how little self-control or even reflection some admins have when strutting around with their block button. Pretty clear indication they shouldn't have them in the first place.Volunteer Marek 00:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have unblocked Kiefer Wolfowitz. Explanation is here. Fram (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A short block for insults may have been reasonable, especially if coupled with admonishments to other parties. Kww assigned a non-existence threat to my sentence "X is welcome to Y", an admittedly opaque sentence written late at night, as a justification for the 3-month block. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

removal of lucy liu's racist comments

you removed an edit with a very reliable source; a youtube video of her saying the comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucy_Liu&diff=prev&oldid=517877459

...

You're not sorry

I wish you wouldn't say you're sorry when you're not. Don't be sorry for what I did, be sorry—if you're sorry at all, which you're clearly not in this instance—for what you did. Saying you're sorry for how somebody else feels is an annoying mannerism that you would do better to shed. If you do it for politeness, it's really not working. You might perhaps read the very short essay I'm sorry you screwed up. Bishonen | talk 20:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC).

It's quite correct, actually. It genuinely makes me sad that you feel the way you do. It truly perplexes me how you do not see that supporting people that chronically misbehave damages the project.—Kww(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, in that case it's not just an annoying mannerism to comment on the way I feel, it's an annoying presumption. I don't really want to be told how you feel about the way I feel. Your sadness is no affair of mine. Bishonen | talk 20:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC).

Arbcom filing notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Offsite comments and personal attacks and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

#Beautiful (Mariah Carey Song)

The song charted on the Brazil billboard hot 100 airplay I just need you to give me the official website release. Thank youFidel 23:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

#Beautiful (Mariah Carey Song)

Hi, the Lebanese Mix FM is the Lebanese Official airplay top 20, you can check its official article on Wikipedia concerning the #1 hits since 1996 - 1998... Just wanted to check if I can add the chart position of #Beautiful to the chart list. [here the chart position] Fidel 12:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Summertime_anthem

Brexx again?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Uncertain. Monitoring.—Kww(talk) 06:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The edits feel very very close to Brexx, just that not leaving any edit summaries. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Alan F. Horn

Hi, thanks for correcting my bad edit on the article. It happened because I'm struggling with the new visual editor and would really like to turn it off. Do you know how by any chance? Yambaram (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Billboard Brazil

Hi. the information I've been were copied and saved from the site Billboard.biz or prints of physical magazine. Diamonds was # 12 on editing a note on February and March (issue # 38) which featured three months of HOT100 because sometimes the Billboard Brazil used not to publish in January, perhaps for vacation and bring 2 or 3 months of Hot100 Airplay in the next edition. The position was # 15 in the April issue (number 39), which was related to HOT100 March. I would not edit the page Diamonds because someone had already placed at # 12, actually I opened to copy the similiar code to edit pages of other songs and clicked save wrongly. Finally, the problem is that sometimes the peak of the songs are not updated on the website of the American Billboard as the one you showed me or are updated with delays. The billboard Brazil is still young (4 years) and still thinks more on selling physical issue, ignoring a bit to put data HOT100 Brazil Airplay on the internet, unfortunately. But I only include actual data. Regards. Thissz (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

ARTPOP has a release date!

Hi! ARTPOP finally has a release date, so can you please move the article Wikipedia:Article Incubator:Artpop out of the incubator into the mainspace please? Thanks! ARTPOPist (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Did a bad move again. Why don't you ever learn from your mistakes Artpopist? You are simply disruptive and waste everyone's time. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that was my fault. And do I sense a hint of animosity? It was a simple mistake, its no big deal. Please don't be mean. If it wasn't for me, that incubated article would not exist. ARTPOPist (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Moved again into articlespace, although I'm not sure it belongs in articlespace yet either (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Glen Campbell videos

Hi, an editor called Hyacinth added a BLP notice to a (merged) videography article called Glen Campbell videos, apparantly because you told her in this discussion (User_talk:Hyacinth#Infobox_single): "Do not add information about living persons to any article unless you can provide a source" (which is true, but doesn't mean one has to start adding a BLP notice to every album, single or discography page for living artists on wikipedia). Any idea what is going on? Thanks. Lumdeloo (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP notice, all I saw was a "citation needed", which would appear to be true. Some will argue that video credits aren't contentious, but that's only true until you get one wrong and deprive the proper person of credit for his work. I'd go ahead and find the needed citations and let it drop. If Hyacinth goes on some kind of spree tagging thousands of articles, that would start to get disruptive, but I don't see that we are at that point. BTW, Hyacinth is a "him".—Kww(talk) 15:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The BLP notice would be (have been) on the talk page, not the article.

How would tagging articles as requiring or missing something you said was required or missing be disruptive? Hyacinth (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's one of those things that I don't fully agree with, but a lot of people seem to believe to be true. They see the tag as some kind of insult to the people that created the article, so, even if it points out a valid problem, they get upset if they see too many of them. If you sat down with your computer and began adding a citation needed tag to every reference to an artist or director that wasn't properly credited in Wikipedia, I can promise you that people would start calling your edits disruptive. In general, if someone has the time to tag thousands of articles, it would be better for him to use that time to actually correct a lesser number of articles.—Kww(talk) 22:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The BLP notice is indeed on the talk page. I think it's strange to add it to a videography article. As I said, if that's is correct then every article about a release by a living artist should get a BLP notice, which is, to be frank, nonsense. I get the feeling that Hyacinth is using the article to continue a certain discussion between you two. If either of you can give me a good reason why it should be there, I'm fine with it. Otherwise, I will remove it again. PS: The citation needed tags are not a problem as far as I'm concerned. I will look for the citations needed. Thanks! Lumdeloo (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The BLP tag certainly isn't wrong, as Glen Campbell is, indeed, still alive and material on that page has to conform to BLP. What people tend to forget is that nearly all articles that we would consider "pop culture" have BLP considerations. Since it isn't wrong, I'd leave it there.—Kww(talk) 22:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's not "wrong" in a pure theoretical sense, but practically it sure doesn't make sense. I hope that sentence made sense! :) Moving on... Lumdeloo (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

User page blocked

my user page is still showing as blocked any chance you can undo this?Deneuve15 (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Page blocked. Not able to edit / CD-single covers

Hello, Kww

I'm trying to keep the Ana Johnsson Wikipedia page updated, but I noticed that you blocked some pages (for exemple: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catch_Me_If_You_Can_(song)&action=history , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Way_I_Am_(Ana_Johnsson_song)&action=history , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Break_Through_Time&action=history ) and I wanted to ask you why, what was wrong with those pages and why am I not able to edit them anymore. I'm asking you this because I don't understand the reason why they are blocked and I'm hoping that you can clear me this up. Also, I have another question and maybe you can answer me. Is there a copyright if I try to upload a CD-single cover? Because sometimes I upload CD-single covers and they are OK, and other times I upload them and I get copyright warnings and I fill up all the credits sections. Hopefully you'll have time to answer to this.

Thank you for your time. Have a nice day.

Cozican5 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox person

Please revert your recent change at {{Infobox person}}, for which no consensus has been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

DFTT

TCO is trolling and you're just feeding him. For as long as you've been around, you should recognize this. Start another thread. Stop opening my close. PumpkinSky talk 19:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Resignation discussion at WT:ADMIN

Please either undo the close, withdraw, and allow a neutral third-party to close it, or redact your final barb "I think that's a shame, as I know of no other job where a person can quit in rage one day and come back the next with zero consequences". You and I both know that Wikipedia is government by WP:CONSENSUS, and stabbing your fingers in the consensus' eyes in a closing statement is certainly not respectful of the consensus formed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Deneuve15 (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

unlock Brooke Shields

It has been 2 and a half years. Unlock it. Thank You. 71.191.244.33 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)