User talk:Akrabbim

Thanks for that

The image purge worked, dunno why its like that as tis not updated the pics automatically for like 3 days but the purge did fix the problem, thanks for the advice Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. —Akrabbim^talk 20:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

UBX for discussion

An article that you have been involved in editing, User:UBX, has been proposed for a discussion. If you are interested, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis^☂ 00:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

As we've been discussing at te WP Albums talk page, it's best to hold off implementing infobox changes before we settle on how exactly everything is going to work out. After all, it's much more effective to implement changes once instead of having to go back and fix things repeatedly as we hammer out the details. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Associated acts on Switchfoot

Why is it "unnecessary?" It helps to give light to projects that the Switchfoot members are/were involved with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joberooni (talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The infobox is about the band, and none of those bands I removed have any affiliation with Switchfoot other than having one member in common. The "Affiliated acts" field is for notable professional relationships between the bands, not necessarily individual members. See the instructions given at Template:Infobox musical artist. It says to avoid listing bands with only one member in common. It's not like that information is otherwise absent, either - all those bands are mentioned in different parts of the band article, as well as being in the infobox on the respective individual's articles. It's not like the information isn't important, it just doesn't belong in the infobox. I'm sorry I didn't explain when I reverted your edit, as I see now you asked why in your edit summary. That was kind of rude of me. —Akrabbim^talk 05:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries man. Was just wondering what your rationale was but that makes sense! Thanks! Joberooni (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Time frames

It is perfectly fine to list years in order insure accuracy of when the band was signed and when it wasn't. It doesn't take up too much extra space. Explain this to me. Joberooni (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Nevermind.

That was easy :) Let me know if you still are wondering about it. —Akrabbim^talk 02:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Got it. :P Joberooni (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

AIV help

Thanks for your help. I should be OK from here. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

ronaldo images

Do you think there is any way possible to properly upload these images of Cristiano Ronaldo? [1] Please let me know. I'm dying to put them up and you seem to be very knowledgeable. Mikysilva94 (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replied back at WP:MCQ with your original question. —Akrabbim^talk 05:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Akrabbim. You have new messages at Tim1357's talk page.
Message added 02:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replied. Thanks! Tim1357 (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Album Bot

Hey Akrabbim, I was hoping that you could make sure that I am doing what is wanted with DASHBot. Has anything changed? I did exactly what I was told to in the 'Bot work' section. Give me a message if consensus changes. Tim1357 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The main objection right now is that when you add a Reception section to a short article, it looks pretty bad, and the template is forced below the infobox (i.e. Freedumb). Someone suggested that you just add the template below the infobox without adding a new section or {{Arprose}}, but I think it would be a better idea to put the new section with {{Album ratings}} and {{Arprose}} below the tracklisting, instead of above it. I think this would be applicable with stub- and start-class articles. The rest of the articles will be fine with it above the tracklisting, where it belongs. There is no official consensus yet, but I think this will fix the problem people have with the process. —Akrabbim^talk 17:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns with the 2009 albums page

I think the page has become large and unwieldy, it took minutes to load it up, and it might have the same results for other users. Is there any possible way to compact the page?--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 21:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. I removed the list from 2009 in music, which was tagged as being too long as well, and I have been busy making sure all of the information there made it into this list. After I had finished with that, I was going to bring it up on the talk page to see what should be done about it. I haven't thought about it that much, but maybe we could break it up into monthly lists? What we would keep on the main list I have no idea. Let's take more discussion to the list's talk page. —Akrabbim^talk 03:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Discussion on WT:RD

No, I have NOT been disruptive at all. I brought up valid points. It is not my fault that people tried to argue something else with me about the signatures. I tried my best to stick to the topic of the diff links, it was kainaw who kept making an issues out of something else. Every comment I post was civil and on topic. I also think that you should give a message to kainaw as well about being "disruptive", as he was as much a part of that discussion as I was and it is unfair to single me out only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.90 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We can continue this discussion at WT:RD, where you have already responded. —Akrabbim^talk 13:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Humanities Ref. Desk

Your post at the Humanities Ref. Desk.[2] is disruptive. You can state that a stigma existed without duplicating the prejudice that supported the stigma. The wording "dirty enough to have sex out of wedlock" insults millions of women. Please consider striking the words dirty enough. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, I see now that it was a bit crass, I have now reworded it to more accurately communicate what I was originally trying to say. Thanks for pointing that out. —Akrabbim^talk 00:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the wording. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Image

The Doors is my favorite band, why cannot I have his(her,your) image in my page?, what type of images must I have?, can I have some image related to the music? --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

The reason you cannot have that specific image is because it does not have a free copyright. Under fair use, you can only use these particular images in articles that explain the subject in an encyclopedic or educational fashion, and where a free alternative is not sufficient. This practice in no way applies to user pages, so you have to find a free image. All of the free images on Wikipedia are hosted at the WikiMedia Commons. Any file there can be used however you want, and they automatically work with Wikipedia (meaning you can add them to articles or user pages as if they were on Wikipedia already). For more information, you can read WP:FILE, WP:UP#NOT, and WP:FU. Let me know if you still have any questions. —Akrabbim^talk 03:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You want me to say that any image of WikiMedia Commons is free to get in my user page? --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

That's exactly right. Also, since many of the images on Wikipedia are hosted at the commons, you can check how you are allowed to use them in the "Licensing" section of the image description, without having to look through commons if you don't want. Here is an example of a free image, and here is an example of a non-free image. —Akrabbim^talk 03:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks friend. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ref desk

I restored it. Bearian (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. —Akrabbim^talk 02:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Falloutboy Revision

Can you explain your revision?174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question. The hatnote is supposed to be short and concise to quickly direct readers that are looking for the Simpsons character to the right location. In this case I find it unnecessary to leave the whole link, including the #Section pointer all displayed, when you can just pipe-link it (or use a different for template) for clarity. —Akrabbim^talk 03:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's leave out the section and just have it link to the list. Is that ok?174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)