User talk:Huntster/Archive 3

2007, January

The Open Door image

Just wondering, how exactly is the cover of the above image not fair use? If you are referring to the fact that Eacz12 uploaded one under CC-by-SA, that doesn't count. A scan of a copyrighted image maintains the status of the original image i.e. the one uploaded by Eacz12 was still under full copyright of Wind-up and/or Evanescence (a scan doesn't have sufficient originality to be copyrightable). If this isn't what made you say that my image wasn't fair use, please tell me what did. But I'll just point out that the image uploaded by Eacz12 has exactly the same status in copyright and he/she does not have the authority to licence it under CC-by-SA (since either way about my image, you seem to be supporting the view that he/she does). This also applies to the image of Fallen and Anywhere but home. If you do not believe me feel free to confirm this by asking at WP:COPYRIGHT but do not upload any more images under licences which you do not have the authority to issue or replace properly licenced (fair use) images with ones uploaded as such - unless you have another reason for replacing mine (again, scanning it does not give you the right to licence it) - ^???_???^{(t • c • e)} 13:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) All I know is that this issue was discussed with a couple of admins, who stated that scanned images are equated with digital photographs, and that they do not fall under fair-use, similar to how you can take a photograph of any other product (vehicle, sofa, etc) and it be a valid exclusion of FU. Perhaps CC-by-SA is the wrong tag, but I'm convinced by both the above statements and by that logic, that these are valid images. No offense, but I'm getting somewhat perturbed by the rediculous amount of contradictory information presented here. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I accept that someone else has said otherwise, but I can assure they're wrong in this case (unless I'm misinterpreting what you said). I would advise you to confirm this at WP:IMAGE or WP:COPYRIGHT, or alternatively if you'd rather see an example of a case which proved they are not independantly copyrightable you could also look at Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation. To summarise, the Library had made digital copies of paintings whose copyright had long expired. Corel reused the images without permission on the grounds that the copyright had expired (even though Bridgeman created the digital versions). Bridgeman subsequently filed suit. In the end the court ruled in favour of Corel, citing that digital copies of images aren't independantly copyrightable as they show no originality, or at least not sufficient originality (applies to US law, which is what is applicable for Wikipedia). If you want to see more detail, like I said, just take a loook at the article. - ^???_???^{(t • c • e)} 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also the photo thing was certainly wrong. For example, a photo of a chair is yours to copyright, because the chair isn't a copyrighted work. Even if you photograph something which is copyrighted (for example a logo) in many cases it will still not be infringement unless the copyrighted work is the main idea in the photo. For example, a photo of a television does not infringe on the logo of the manufacturer, because it is not the main idea in the photo and would not be particularly prominent but it may infringe on the rights of what is displayed on screen (e.g. a TV show). - ^???_???^{(t • c • e)} 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Thanks, but after discussing this on IRC this morning with both regular users and admins, I'm at the point of throwing up my hands in disgust, especially with one of the closing statements by an admin being "Admins don't know any more about copyright than you do." While it may be true, this is a disturbing statement to make, as it calls into question the ability to accurately assess the licensing. I frankly don't care anymore if you nominate every bloody image for speedy; perhaps the articles would be better off without any images, free or fair-use (a policy which I consider to be a joke, given the number of holes and the vagueness in which it is presented). Anyway, do whatever you want, I'm quite finished caring. In any case, I'll toss up a message on the main Ev article, and I suggest it might be a good idea for you to do the same. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not particularly concerned about the copyright problems myself in this case (but I do agree they need to be there). Whoever said that on IRC today was very wise. Knowing how the copyright works is not neccessary for adminship. The main reason I was against the images is because they have the same copyright status as ones from digital sources, but the digital sources (such as iTunes) will be better quality. - ^???_???^{(t • c • e)} 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Das Ubergeekness of the Clan

Yep, it must be in our blood. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nf utvol (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey! You found me! My username is much easier to find than yours...I didn't think to only capitalize the first letter. Yeah, if you ever have any questions about the wiki, just ask. Also, there is an IRC channel that's great to hang out in, and occasionally ask questions, irc://irc.freenode.net, channel #wikipedia. Also, when you write on other folks' talk pages, remember to sign your post with ~~~~ (four tildes), so that it'll put your name and time at the end, like so: -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Whee, will do. What prog are you using for IRC these days? The first capitalization is a glitch in wiki anyways, never intended to have any capitalization... Nf utvol 04:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) That's a good point, though there is a template somewhere that will at least allow the article title to display in it's intended format, even if the actual title is malformed. I'll attempt to find it. I'm still using mIRC, newest version. It simply works. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you perchance going to be available any evening this weekend? I'm coming home and was contemplating a trip to Nashville.Nf utvol 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) No, unfortunately :( I have to work at midnight, so my sleep schedule is all screwed up. Arg! When are you returning to K-town? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Evanescence

(X-Posted) Hi, regarding your recent edits to Evanescence songs, please do not link to YouTube videos featuring copyrighted material. This is not acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the remainder. May I be informed of any related Wikipedia guidelines? Ktsquare (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) :Well, it's hard to point to specific guidelines without frames of reference, and I'm certainly not an expert in these matters; I just have knowledge of many items that I've come across in my time here. For example, copyrighted imagry may be used on Wikipedia if it falls within Fair-use criteria, but videos and other related material cannot be reproduced in full because that violates certain copyright laws (this includes news broadcasts, music videos and full songs, television episodes, and the like). Like I said, I'm not good at dispensing information without having specifics to work off of, so if you have any procedural questions regarding specific events or occurances, I'll do my best to help, or try and refer you to someone/someplace else that can give you better information. Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 15:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What?

(X-Posted) Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Evanescence. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question for you, how is adding a album and singles chart [[[vandalism]]? It makes in better! It shows the number on the rock, hot 100 charts for Evanescance's albums and singles! If you have a problem then tell me mre, because showin what i did was better not bad!--Musicaltheatrewiz 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Okay, perhaps this one was a bit strong. However, we have pages that are mostly dedicated to providing chart information, such as Evanescence discography. There really is no reason to include that information on every page of Evanescence, when it can more appropriately be accessed from that page, or from the Album articles. Also, you added something about a 2007 release, that is not verified, and looks completely made-up. That is what really prompted the above tag. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I hope this makes sense. If you have any questions, please let me know. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand now what i di was wrong, thankyou for telling me. But the 2007 release hasn't been released yet but will, if you want to she that i'm telling the truth go to www.allmusic.com and look up Evanescance. When you get there go to Discography and it will show that album.--Musicaltheatrewiz 21:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Interesting, but that is definitely a mistake. All Music Guide has been known for some blatant errors in the past, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Lets refrain from adding this under there's some independent confirmation, okay? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

okay, thankyou.--Musicaltheatrewiz 21:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I could have sworn that I had the grammar right there, but looks like we never stop learning ^_^ Thanks for fixing my mistake and setting me straight, apologies for reverting your good faith edit. ˜ The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey, don't worry about it; like you said, we never stop learning. It's true wisdom to understand that fact :) Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Frederick Baron

The same IP continues to add an external link. I am not sure of the policy re a link of the subject of the article - but it seems unnecessary to have mulitple links. If you can help (I see you deleted it once), it would be great. I think this same person continues to add this. THanks. Jance 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll add it to my watchlist and keep an eye on it for the time being. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: AFD BattleFront III

(X-Posted) Regarding Battlefront III, perhaps it would be best to AfD this article. That seems to me the most reasonable thing to do, given the complete lack of information we have on it. Personally, I tend to believe those articles that were originally introduced, but I'd be just as happy to have the article removed and wait for more concrete evidence. What say you? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more -- I watched a week or so ago, someone nominated it for speedy deletion, but it never actually was deleted. If it's nominated for deletion, you have my vote. ˜ The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Shepard Smith

You beat me to the "cite a published source edit"! I happened to be watching Smith's Studio B show last friday 1/19 at 3:30 and he told his side kick Jane Skinner that he is "Happily divorced". Engaged men don't say that, especially not on TV. I'm going to check around for video. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misstory (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) See, I'm just talented like that ;) However, even if you find a video, we cannot link to it, because doing so would violate copyright laws. Citing sources is definitely a finicky thing... -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You rock, Hunster! I see your point. The published source is best. The "Patricia" entries and comments are very similar, though by various Id's, just sayin'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misstory (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Video

Hey, Why have u deleted all the Video info from all that Evanescence singles articles??? Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I haven't deleted any recently, but the video links I did delete were ones on YouTube or other such service. They are copyrighted, and being present on YouTube is a violation of copyright, thus, we cannot link to them. I'm working on getting this fixed, and links to properly copyrighted videos established. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

2007, February

Barnstar

		Barnstar
		I, Eacz12 hereby award you a Tireless Contributor Barnstar for contributing tirelessly to the Evanescence, related pages and many other articles. Keep up the good work and please, don't stop contributing!!!  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Myspace

Hello. How does one know that a particular myspace is the OFFICIAL myspace of a person/band? (there are many fake myspaces). Cdrod431 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Replying to user, if a page falls under the "MySpace Music" category, that indicates an official presence. Regular profiles probably should not be used, unless, for example, they are linked to by the official website. Like I said, it is really a case-by-case basis. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Regards and thanks for clarification. Cdrod431 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Never a problem :) I would suggest, though, that you review the edits you've just made and determine if they should be kept or reverted. I've got to run, so won't be able to. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Cdrod431 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Evanescence

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Evanescence and other related articles. Please consider joining the WikiProject Evanescence, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Evanescence. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you!!!

 Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why don't you join the project?? You are one of the best contributors on the Evanescence's articles.  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

(See complete discussion at Armando's Archive 3.)

Commons

A question...if the Evanesence logo is licensed under the CC BY SA 2.5...shouldn't it be uploaded to Commons? (yeah, I know I'm a noob :S)  Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(See related discussion at Armando's Archive 3.)

XM Radio

Good call on XM Satellite Radio external links. Vees 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See also

See also is better for the sections, because actually, the sections don't talk exactly about the albums but the current events that happened during each album era...The sections could be even without the that section templates... Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) In this current usage, "Main" does work better because the sections in question only talk about events surrounding those albums. "See also" is good for the Anywhere but Home section because it also refers to Moody's departure. Were that section only to refer to the album, I'd suggest "Main" be used for it as well. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhh.....well It's ok... Armando.O  ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

This is for all your good work on the Charmed articles!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Good job on all your work on the Charmed articles! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Thanks so much for that Mal, I appreciate it :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 15:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob, you deserve it! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Evanescence

(X-Posted) Hi there, I'm sure you were trying to revert the previous vandalism to the article Evanescence, however, you reverted my edit instead. Please try to be aware when vandalism has already been reverted, especially if you happen upon an edit conflict (though I don't know if one was presented to you or not). Thanks! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see your edit until I returned to History to access the vandal's talk page. When I noticed that my revision had deleted some of your changes, I reverted to your edit. Sorry about that! --Ann Stouter 03:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Heh, Wikipedia apparently does many strange things...I thought I had reverted your revert, but it looks like it accepted your change instead of mine. It's all good now, in any case ;) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Matthew Jay article incident

Hi Huntster. Thanks so much for your support and for cleaning up the mess of my talk page. p.s. I believe that R. Magowan is actually Ms. Rachael Magowan so feel free to edit your message to reflect her correct gender! --Paul Erik 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Style question

(X-Posted) I just noticed your edit on Call Me When You're Sober, where you converted all the numbers from numeral to written-out format. I have to ask why this was done...numbers over ten are acceptable as numerals in any circumstance. The MoS only says you are allowed to write them out if they are only two words, not that you must. I find your changes...curious. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I used to find it "curious" as well, but Mel Etitis (talk · contribs), a university professor of English, said a while ago that many major manuals of style stipulate that numbers under 100 should be written out. I also think it reads nicer, but I won't be bothered if you revert.

By the way, I've seen some of your edits to the various Evanescence articles, and I just thought I'd tell you what a great job you're doing. You help to keep Wikipedia from "going under" :). Extraordinary Machine 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Thanks for your kind words, I appreciate them! I am not going to revert, I was just curious because I've never seen such a guideline before. Thanks for the reply. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

2007, March

MTSU Horseshoe & Pressbox

(X-Posted) Hey! I see you added a pic of the MT horseshoe to the article. While it is of great quality, the angle of the shot makes it more than a little uncomfortable to look at, truth be told. If you are ever in a position to take another shot, it would be fantastic if you could make one with normal verticle alignment. (I would, but I don't have a camera...) Remember, we're not going for artistic shots here, just a high quality, clear representation of the target. Thanks for the contribution! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, you may want to look at your Image:MTSU Pressbox.JPG, as it is currently labeled for deletion because you indicated it was licensed for use on Wikipedia only. Might I suggest that you change the license to {{PD-self}}, which is what you used for your Horseshow picture, or one of the other licenses suggested on the Image page? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a better picture, I just thought this one looked cooler, and made it seem a bit bigger than it actually was. Also, I'll get on the pressbox one too. Thanks for pointing that out. I have a few more pictures, mostly of athletic stuff, but I'm waiting on Spring to come to take more pictures for Wiki.Raider ATO 05:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Great change to the horseshoe image, in my opinion. Provides fantastic clarity. I look forward to seeing other pictures you create! Some ideas as far as possible targets go: perhaps an interior Murphy Center photo during a game, some kind of panoramic shot of the Greek Row properties (a little difficult given the nature of the curve?), student activity in front of the KUC, and some architecture shots (Library from the courtyard, MassComm, couple of other decent looking buildings). I'm going to try and get permission to post up a campus map, or make one from scratch. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I don't know how to get Wiki to be cool with pictures other than taking them myself. I have an aerial image from the 1952 yearbook showing what the campus looked like then. It's pretty amazing how much has happened since then. These last 50 years showed a lot of growth compared to the first 50.-Raider ATO 07:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Well, I'm fairly good with the licenses, so if you want, go ahead and upload it and I'll take care of that side of things. Aerial images are always great, should be interesting to see. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:MTSU_1952_Aerial.gif <-- There is the aerial. -Raider ATO 08:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I also have 2 pictures from Operation Full House (largest crowd in the Murphy Center) but neither are mine, and I don't know where they came from. I imagine the DNJ. I'd have to do some searching. -Raider ATO 08:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Okay, the aerial photo has been taken care of. That really is a good image...now just have to find it a nice home in the article somewhere. As for those other photos, since the source isn't known, they really should not be used; if you happen to locate the source eventually, then we can determine the correct license and give proper attribution. Thanks for your work here! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

MTSU Group

Thanks for joining! Sorry I've been out of contact during my midterms. JNAllen 10:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

William Boyd

(X-Posted) Hi there, I see you helped out with the recent problem with the renaming of William Boyd in articles to Will Boyd. Just wanted to drop a note saying thanks, but that if he's so bloody adamant about renaming that he's going to start a revert war, he can have the (@#$!) name. I will not become involved in such a war, not only because of 3RR, but for simple civility issues as well. I'll start the process of renaming and reediting all the articles so it is actually done correctly. Sorry to moan, I'm not usually like this...just the proverbial last straw and such... -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It appears that (s)he does not realize that "Will Boyd" has been redirected to "William Boyd (musician)". :-) — Indon (reply) — 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Daedalus

(X-Posted) Great copyediting, but be careful to use American English for an American-based television show article, rather than traditionally British English terms like 'dialled' and 'manoeuvre'. Personally, I prefer those words as well, but the manual of style dictates otherwise. Just a thought. Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally the only American word I know is "color" (I really can't fathom how they pronounce words properly, to be honest). I'll install an American dictionary into Firefox anyway. Matthew 15:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hehe, I understand. Not a big deal; I catch what I can. I'm a born American and I still use British spellings in my personal work. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

2007, April

Re:Flags in Articles

(X-Posted) Greetings. I am not going to revert your edit again, at least not until I've taken more time to consider the issue, but I would encourage you to not go around removing flags without local consent. I've read through the material on the issue and while I see a number of people who wish them to be gone, I see no overwhelming majority and certainly no guideline demanding their removal. Note also that the article you linked to in the edit summary is nothing more than an essay, and cannot be considered as a guideline or otherwise. Just a few thoughts on the issue. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put it back in, you're right.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 02:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, um, I hate to ask, but I'm having to use a Handheld to use internet for now, and for some reason, I am not able to enter the flag back in. Could you if possible do it? You will not receive conflict from me... Thanks and have a nice day! Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 02:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Wilco, thanks for the reply :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Template signing

(X-Posted) I see that you are currently using a template to transclude your signature onto talk pages when you sign. Per WP:SIG this is forbidden, and you need to stop using such templates for your signature. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. Cheers, -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

When? I last did that about 4 months ago, yes in 2006. I don't use it anymore so we needn't worry :) Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

(X-Posted) *Hits his forehead* Please accept my apologies, I saw the use of the {{User}} template and stopped thinking, automatically assuming that it was a personalized template. Again, I'm sorry about that :( -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries I did a lot of crazy stuff when I started Wiki.... :) Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

Images in chronology

(X-Posted) Please stop including album covers in the chronology sections of articles. This is a violation of Wikipedia's fair-use policy regarding images, because the images are not being discussed, and are merely decoration. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry...I got the idea from whoever did it to The Used chronology...I didn't know it was against any sort of policy. I shall stop DaronMalakian47 April 19th, 2007 08:04 p.m.

(X-Posted) Thanks :) Yeah, there was considerable debate about this type of thing in various related WikiProjects and Policy pages, and it was determined to fail fair-use. As for The Used, it does appear they are in bad violation of these image policies. I probably won't make changes myself, but may bring it to an admins attention, so they can make the determination as to what should be done. I'll just have to determine the history. Thanks again for understanding. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I understand. I don't read all the wiki policies and regulations...so if I ever violate one, just kind of gently push me into the right direction. DaronMalakian47 April 19th, 2007 08:12 p.m.

Fallen Artwork

Ok i have waited for a decision to be made like you ask but nothing at all has happened. There is no actual proof that there is two different artworks for the two different issues. I will gladly send you photos of both the original (bought in august 2003) and the reissue (bought in 2005) and tehy both ahve the same artwork. the only difference between the two were the stickers on them. The artwork you claim to be the original artwork is just an image used for promotional purposes. Now please could you do something about this issue instead of continuing to sit around and ignore it? never be good enough April 20th, 2007 04:00 p.m

(X-Posted) Just because your copy doesn't have the same cover as the image here isn't grounds to remove the image. Just because I don't have that cover doesn't mean anything. A claim was made that this is the original press cover, backed up by evidence from the official website and by multiple other sites. Unless stronger contradictory proof can be found, we need to keep the images the way they are. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Then what contradictory proof would you like? I've made a list below of things that may help. Please take the time to read them.

• Both my FIRST and SECOND edition copies of Fallen were bought from well known major music stores but both carry the "second edition artwork"
• When i first purchased Fallen in July 2003 every single music store i went to had all copies of Fallen with the "second edition artwork" when the second edition hadn't been released anywhere (My Immortal hadn't even been released as a single then and no one had ever heard of the Band Version which was the whole reason for the second issue).
• Every single customer uploaded image on amazon is of the "second edition artwork", including a picture of the artwork inside a CD case displaying one of the promotional stickers that the very first copies of Fallen were sold with.
• Even though there should be literally millions of people with the first edition why have I, a great evanescence fan, not as of yet seen one copy of Fallen with what you call the "first edition artwork" in person or in photo and as of yet haven't met anyone claiming to have a copy?.
• The official Bring Me To Life single was released BEFORE the first edition of Fallen yet on the inside artwork under the heading "First single from the debut album" it shows a picture of the "second edition artwork".
• The official Taiwanese Fallen and the official cassette tape Fallen, both made in 2003, have the "second edition artwork".
• All the official T-Shirts for sale on the official website in 2003 that had Fallen artwork all had "second edition artwork".
• Official merch that i own that was made in 2003 under licence by C&D Merch, including a Fallen sticker and a Fallen badge/pin, all use "second edition artwork".
• Both the official Fallen Guitar-TAB book and official Fallen Piano/Vocal/Guitar book, first published by Warner Bros. Publications in 2003, use the "second edition artwork" as their front cover.

All these points by themselves might not mean much but together they all clearly point to one thing. That the first edition of Fallen simply CANNOT have had what you claim to be the "first edition artwork". What record label trying to push a band would release all the products meantioned above then use different album artwork on the main product they were trying to get people to buy. And seriously what record label would make such a change to the main album art anyway? If you still have a disagreement please reply to this because i want to set this right. For all the points where it's possible to do so I am prepared and willing to provide photographic evidence if need be. - never be good enough April 20th, 2007 08:50 p.m.

Commas in wikidates

(X-Posted) Hi Robin, just a note, I've replaced the commas you removed from Charmed. Wikidates need to be written in the form that is commonly used in the country of origin for the article. Since Charmed is filmed in the U.S. and targeted to such an audience, the article should be written in the grammer and format commonly used in the U.S. (by contrast, the article for Wicca is written in British English format because its origins were in the UK). It really doesn't matter how it is written in the article, as registered users who have set their preferences will see wikidates in their preferred formats. It is just the 90% of the rest of the world that will see it as it is written in the article. Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please teach me how to add a wikiproject to the list

Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts Please teach me how to add to list Wikipedia:Project shortcuts. Tkjazzer 00:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) No problem, its very easy. First of all, you have to find a shortcut you want to use, such as WP:MARTIAL or WP:WPMA (since WP:MA is already taken). Once you determine what you want to use, just create the article and make a redirect to your WikiProject (aka, type *only* "#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts]]" in the article, without quotation marks, and save). Once that is done, you can include the shortcut on the list of redirects page. You will also need to include the following code at the very top of your main WikiProject article: {{shortcut|[[shortcut]]}}, where "shortcut" is the WP:whatever shortcut you choose. That should be all you need to do. If you have any further questions, just let me know, I'm happy to help, or review what you've done after you've followed the above instructions. Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Chattanooga Up For Deletion

WP:CHA Qmax 02:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Okay, I've moved the deletion to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Chattanooga to follow proper deletion protocol (you cannot use Prod on pages that aren't articles, templates, and similar). So, head on over to the new page and cast your vote, and see if your Chattanooga history project friends might want to do the same. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Qmax 11:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Evanescence sales figures

(X-Posted) I know you said you checked SoundScan, but what website or publication is this data located in? Please do provide a proper citation, or provide the information for me and I'll do it. Thanks. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Only memebers can have access to the site, but every week in some forums, some people post the SoundScan numbers, and I believe they're for real since Billboard confirme them every week.

Top 10 by Nielsen SoundScan:

1 VARIOUS NOW 24 89,213 -58 213,180 532,538

2 MCGRAW*TIM LET IT GO 65,807 -63 176,592 567,657

3 AKON KONVICTED 59,733 -20 74,643 2,133,326

4 BRIGHT EYES CASSADAGA 58,354 999 357 58,713

5 TIMBALAND TIMBALAND PRESENTS SHOCK VALUE 58,314 -58 138,331 196,839

6 DAUGHTRY DAUGHTRY 54,258 -45 98,426 2,258,477

7 BEYONCE B'DAY 51,217 -59 125,974 2,550,463

8 MCBRIDE*MARTINA WAKING UP LAUGHING 49,995 -64 138,666 187,023

9 HELL YEAH HELL YEAH 44,878 999 265 45,146

10 KRAUSS*ALISON HUNDRED MILES OR MORE: A COLLE 41,988 -42 72,771 114,821

You may check out last week new (04/18/07) on Billboard.com and see these sales, and seem to be accurate.

Then I believe these are for real too:

81 PRETTY RICKY LATE NIGHT SPECIAL 9,526 -17 11,430 416,617

82 TURNER*JOSH YOUR MAN 9,495 -32 13,967 1,764,519

83 MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE BLACK PARADE,THE 9,412 -33 13,988 1,043,009

84 BEATLES LOVE 9,142 6 8,637 1,396,681

85 SHADOWS FALL THREADS OF LIFE 9,074 -63 24,259 33,559

86 EVANESCENCE OPEN DOOR 8,969 -29 12,599 1,683,456

87 ATKINS*RODNEY IF YOU'RE GOING THROUGH HELL 8,960 -40 14,868 887,248

88 HAPPY FEET SOUNDTRACK 8,890 -33 13,225 322,776

89 RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS STADIUM ARCADIUM 8,840 -40 14,722 2,033,195

90 RELIENT K FIVE SCORE & SEVEN YEARS AGO 8,787 -48 16,913 112,206

Kraft. 03:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Well, I'm not comfortable with not having a proper source for these data, but I suppose it is better than what we have now. Personally, I'd like to get rid of all sales figures that aren't backed by verifiable sources, on all Evanescence articles. I may very well do a sweep at some point and do this, since it would be well within the bounds of Wikipedia policy to do so... :/ -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops!

(X-Posted...complicated) Please stop trying to add {{Episode list}} to the article List of Charmed episodes. The template is currently broken, resulting in major display errors. Beyond that, you are creating a tremendous mess, with broken image and episode links. If you have suggestions as to how to improve the article, please discuss them on the article talk page before attempting to make these changes yourself. Thanks, and if you have any questions, just ask me here or on my talk page. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, why are you uploading copies of images we already have, like the Charmed DVD covers? Please don't replicate data. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So THIS is how u talk here? Huh. I've been sending u emails, lol. Sorry about that.

I haven't been ignoring you, I did email you, I didn't know how to work the thing.

I most certainly have NOT been vandalising the Charmed Page. I have been improving it & you keep erasing it! I'm gonna rewrite some of it & then maybe try again. Just check your emails for my replys to your first message. I can see how you might think I was vandalising but I just typed a few things wrong & that's why they came up red. See, i typed in the CORRECT episode title & sinec it was incorrect on here, it came up as red. But don't worry, I fixed that too so they're all correct now. Well, Season 1 is, I didn't bother fixing the others coz Season 1 wouldn't stick.

Okay, in future, i will consider talking to you before I edit things, okay? Okay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LilMizPiper (talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

(X-Posted) Okay, I don't understand why you created entirely new articles for the episodes, capitalizing terms like "from", "of", etc. This is improper form for any kind of title. Some of the other changes you made have broken the links, directing them to other non-Charmed episodes. Like I have said previously, this page was stablized long ago. Please don't be offended, but I'm going to revert the changes again, including the change to the Season 5 cover (again, this is not the Region 1 image, which is what we are using for this article). Also, your edit to the article Piper Halliwell, while okay, is also somewhat inappropriate, as Wikipedia tries to avoid Trivia sections when they don't add anything to the article. Pointing out likes and dislikes simply isn't encyclopedic. If you choose to add such material in the future, please state which episode established the item. Cheers. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As if you wouldn't be interested in Trivia! i go through each episode writing down every little detail I hear, lol. Meh, your loss.

I changed the Season 5 cover because region 4 (which is what I have) looks better. Same with Season 7.

Oh, yeah, the whole capitalizing 'of' & 'from'? I'm a perfectionist. I can't help myself, lol.

But make sure the title 'When Bad Warlocks Go Good' is changed to 'When Bad Warlocks Turn Good'

Hey, where do you get those, ah...userboxes? I think that's what they're called. in your profile you have a think that says 'This user is Wiccan' & it has a pentacle. Where do I get one? I'm Wiccan too *smiles*

Mkay, I'll leave it...But can I PLEASE have the coloured underlines? In The Gilmore Girls one they have that, it looks so cool!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LilMizPiper (talk • contribs) 00:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Going through things one point at a time:

Yes, I like trivia, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Can you imagine such material in Encyclopedia Britannica? I know those DVD covers look better, but I've explained the reason Region 1 images are used. I'm a perfectionist too, but using capitalized minor words (the, of, that, from, and similar terms) is never correct in titles, be they books, movies, etc. This is broken several times on current Charmed titles, and I'll fix them when I have a day to dedicate to going through them all. And yes, I've fixed everything about the When Bad Warlocks Turn Good article, thanks for correcting this.

Hey, always good to meet another Wiccan, our numbers are simply too few. Ah, I believe that you can find them at WP:UBX, or at least on subpages. There are a ton of them, scattered all over Wikipedia. The easiest thing to do is when you find one you like, just click "edit this page" and copy the code (just remember to not save the page afterward). Then, add the userbox code to your own user page.

I don't care about the divider lines, but remember that we're not trying to make things pretty. That comes after making things correct. Cheers, and I'll talk to you later. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 05:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tasks

Thanks for doing that modification to AzaToth's template!  :-) I got it working on all of my WP:RETAIL templates if you care (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Retailing#New WikiProject Retailing template for a live example). Regards, Tuxide 01:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Wow, that was fast! The change was only live for...15-20 minutes?...when you posted that. Well, hopefully others will find it useful as well. Thanks for the message! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

TN project template error

(X-Posted) Hey, what is the error that the ??? causes in the class argument? I've not seen a problem thus far. Cheers. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Try it out, I have a copy of the banner in my sandbox: User:DoxTxob/Sandbox

Take care, doxTxob 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Post) Yeah, I'm trying out new code on mine as well. (Btw, I hope I can convince you not to impliment the auto-collapse thing...I truly hate it...) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Post) Okay, after examining the code a bit closer, I've found it would be highly impractical to enable support for "???", and even the guy I've been working with from Mediawiki can't figure out a simple way to impliment it. I'll be fixing all the article to which this was added. Oi. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 22:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There should not be many articles that have the "importance=???" in it. The automatically tagged articles have the project banner tag without the parameters in it. {{WikiProject Tennessee}}. A lot of the rest I have tagged by hand searching for TN articles and I left the "???" out. doxTxob 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Oh, already taken care of. Just had to go to the fake template page that was indicated (Template:???-Class importance, I believe), and click on the "What links here". -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Tennessee-media-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 06:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Roger Goodell

Perhaps it can reflect short-lived and controversial, both of which are factual and true? If you read the link to Book of Daniel, one will see it was not just short-lived, and not just controversial, but highly controversial and that's why it was cancelled. If Goodell's family was the source for the show's writer, that seems noteworthy for his article. The writer specifically mentions in the link:

Twenty-three years ago, he began a relationship with Michael Goodell, who remains his partner to this day. Kenny was fascinated by Goodell's contradictory family: emotionally closed-off Republicans who were also socially liberal and welcoming to him. He became just as fascinated by their participation in the Episcopal Church, which he found more liberal and tolerant than Catholicism.

Daniel's family was very loosely inspired by Goodell's--"None of them are addicted to Vicodin, but there is a lot of behavior that is exciting to me in that world"--and he has studied them closely to get the Websters' interactions just right.

Thanks.Kritt 23:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hi there. All I'm saying is the term "controversial" implies a point of view...not everyone might call it that (though I would). Using it by itself in an article generally isn't advised, but if you can find a quote from a news article or other source, stick that citation in there, it would probably be okay (since you are then citing a third-party's opinion). It's just one of those things with Wikipedia. (And no, the existing citation which uses 'controversial' probably wouldn't be a good one to use, since it is ever so slightly biased against the subject, being a religious publication and all). Saying all that, I won't revert again, but I will still advise against using this term without a citation. Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Huntster: I'm still confused. The show was cancelled by NBC, and there are tons of sources for the reasons, so why is calling it controversial er....controversial? Thanks again. Kritt 02:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) "Controversial" is one of those descriptive words that, as I see it, fifty percent of a population will agree with and fifty percent will disagree with (just to use those numbers as an example). So including it in an article will leave half of the readers wondering, "Who says it's controversial?" Including a citation of a specific example of an uninvolved critic or journalist calling it controversial provides that frame of reference. I know, it is mostly semantics, but I've learned that one has to be very careful of language used here on Wikipedia. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Youtube

Do you know what the policy is on referencing Youtube videos? Thanks.Kritt 02:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) As for YouTube, external links or citations to videos can only be used if the owner of the video in question has placed it on the site, because it is otherwise a copyright violation (uploaded without permission of the owner). Usually, it is safe to cite a video when the uploader has the little "Director" icon under his username, but other than that, use a little common sense. If it's a TV show or a music video or whatever, and the owner or licensee isn't the uploader (as is the case for the vast majority of videos on YouTube and other video-sharing sites), don't use it. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)