User talk:Madchester/Archive03

Coldplay

So what's up with "Moses" then? You removed it. Xinger 05:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen stations air a video for "One I Love" when Live 2003 was released, never anything for Moses. Can you show me a source indicating that "Moses" actually received any substantial radio airplay? Thanks. --Madchester 06:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about "Moses", but I'll look into it. Xinger 07:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think centering song titles and album titles would be a good or bad idea? Xinger 13:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

kelvins

Hi there, I've reverted your revert of my revert (say that 5 times fast) of Io (moon), because kelvins are written differently than, for example, degrees Celsius. It is lowercase and pluralized when appropriate when written out. See the article kelvin for examples. Still good to see someone's watching my back (: —siro χ o 02:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Madchester

Just saw your note on my page regarding overlinking. I've actually been spending a lot of time unwikifying a lot of repetitive links. Was your note to me in reference to a particular discography table I worked on? If so just let me know and I'll clean it up. -- eo 18:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oooooooh, yes I did ask a question, didn't I. well, thanks for answering, it's no problem. forgive my colander memory. -- eo 18:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Testing

Thanks for reverting my "test" disputation of the neutrality of the Wikipedia page for Casey LeBlanc. It was not, however, a "test". The rationale for my addition of the notation of the page is quite clearly indicated in the discussion page. Let me try putting it another way. The objection is that the current formulation of the page is inappropriate because it shows every indication of having been drafted by Ms. LeBlanc's mother, or by one of her 14 year old fans. It is in no way neutral, and it completely ignores certain facts - admittedly not terribly flattering to Ms. LeBlanc, which played a significant role in her "story", such as it is.

Recent Coldplay edit

I guess that makes sense. Thanks. Drdr1989 03:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article F.E.A.R. (single), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Ian Brown

Oh really? Lucky to have caught him. I remember the time I met him like it was yesterday: the voice of someone (the cameraman) behind me asking me to move, turning around and seeing the man himself on a bike, standing and watching for a while before going up and introducing ourselves and taking photos. He called me "laffin' boy". --Sum0 18:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of F.E.A.R. (single)

I moved F.E.A.R. (single) to F.E.A.R. (song) as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Album_titles_and_band_names and Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. Please do not revert the move again. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 14:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you are coming from, but it isn't just a WikiProject Songs guideline, it's an official policy as well. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Album_titles_and_band_names. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 16:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're sure, then I won't stand in the way. I'm just concerned about the possibility of Wikipedia song articles being inconsistent, between those titled "Name (song)" and those titled "Name (single)". Extraordinary Machine 18:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Glebova

Thank you for your contribution at Natalie Glebova.
Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
Feel free to send me e-mail.

10 October 2005

from l.a.m.b

I'm going to edit all the tour sites that I've started in a way that you have done the harajuku lovers tour site. thanks xxx

Concert tour name usage

Madchester, please see my suggestion in Talk:Zoo TV Tour for concert tour name usage (italics vs quotes vs plain proper nouns). Wasted Time R 12:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Job!

Hi Madchester, Nice Smallville's "Aqua" update. Hope i can get ur help in the future. bye Charlie

that's cool, how'd you get this job.

how old are you?

Image

You're quite right, I should at least have informed you; I can only plead overwork, but that's no excuse. Note, though, that the tag wasn't the "screenshot" one, but the "album-cover/artwork" one, although the image was obviously a screenshot. Still, I'm sorry; I'll take more time and do it properly in future. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shiver (Coldplay single)

Why did you rollback my edits ([1]? You gave no explanation or reason, and all my edits were either following the Manual of Style or the tenets of clear writing:

Unnecessary bolding (one out of keeping with the album template, the other of a concert tour).
The duplicated Wikilinking of a year.
Making an image into a thumbnail.
The turning of a hyphen into the correct em-rule.
Turning the prolix and clumsy "in a studio environment" into "in a studio".
Expanding the unnecessary abbreviation of "amplifier".

Why do you hold that all these edits are so obviously unacceptable that they merit rollback without explanation? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First take a chill pill! I'm not offended, but you'll scare away a lot of newcomers with that attitude. :-)

Now for your points:

If you visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, it shows that all dates are wikifiied within the infobox, even the year of the album's release in the chronology.
Also, there's no problem with bolding the song title within the chronology. As indicated in the introduction to Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs: A lot of this project has been lifted directly from the Albums project. This project is not yet fully defined. Feel free to add stuff to make things clearer. As a result, many contributors have been bolding the song titles, as is the suggested convention in WP:ALBUMS. For example, "Do You Want To", "Let There Be Love", "Gold Digger", etc. I just updated the example infobox to align it with the Albums coventions.
If you've viewed the video, the band is performing in a "studio-like" environment; it's set up to show the band performing, but it's in no way an ideal location for actual recording on master tapes. Saying that the band performs in "a room" or "indoors" does it no justice either.

The only mistakes I actually overlooked was the tour title and amp vs. amplifier. I've fixed those changes myself. I added a caption to the thumb as well.

Cheers. Don't be so hostile next time. :-) --Madchester 19:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The hostility was in your head (unlike your message to me when I erred hastily a little while ago; our different responses to that are also instructive).

Over-linking is specifically warned against in the Manual of style. There's no need to bold the title, which is bolded (as per MoS) in the first line of the article. The article is obviously poorly written, as it doesn't suggest that this is just how the video makes things look, but that was how things were. Most importantly, there was no ground simply to roll back my edits without explanation. That was discourteous at best — something that you're very touchy about when you're on the other side. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an average case, with nothing about it that suggests that the MoS doesn't apply; there are no advantages to linking one year four times in a single infobox. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mills

Sounds like your paper on Vaughn could have some good content for Wikipedia. I get truly depressed looking at the vfd pages. If people spent as much time trying to create content as they do working to destroy it, then Wikipedia would be tons better than it already is. I have created a bunch of articles to see them grow into something worthwhile. That is all that is needed here. So what if you don't care about a retail outlet. It has taken thousands of people to build them, thousands more support their families at them, and it is part of our culture. 24.240.204.226 22:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanna White

Children use WP too, you know! I wouldn't want them to see THAT!

Also, how'd you know RIGHT where to look, ~5 seconds after making the edit?

--Shultz 04:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors... --Madchester 04:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Pretty late, but...) It doesn't say that Wikipedia isn't censored for the protection of Employees. Someone might see a smutty image at work, by accident, and get fired for it. As long as Wikipedia doesn't say that it doesn't censor for the protection of employees, an employee may have an argument. --Shultz 07:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted ~5 seconds after I made the edit. How'd you know to look there right then? Also, are you an admin? --Shultz 04:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 Revert Rule

Was that warning part of the "3 revert rule"?

Harajuku Lovers Tour 2005

Hey! I've been trying to clean that page up, do you have any ideas that what else should I do to it to get rid of that clean-up tag. The concert pages for Madonna that I've done, should be now ok, cause the clean-up tags are gone. Thanks!

--L.a.m.b 22:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi Madchester. I noticed back in august you blocked some vandalous IP addresses indefinitely. Would you please considered going back and unblocking the ones that aren't unblocked already? Just to let you know, i've already unblocked 203.10.121.81 (talk · contribs). Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page image vandalism

The recent vandalism on the Main Page was caused by the image you put up being left unprotected. It is highly important that all images on the Main Page be protected. Wikipedia's Main Page is very high profile and very vulnerable. Also, if an image is from the Commons, you must upload it locally, put {{c-uploaded}} on it, and then protect it here. If there's anything you don't understand about protecting Main Page images, please ask me, because it's a real problem when something like this happens.--Pharos 13:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

iPod nano scratches

Sorry if you thought I was attacking you, I was not. However this issue is stupid. Anyone that is surprised when a device with a smooth plastic surface (that you are supposed to carry around with you day after day) develops scratches, should not be allowed to walk the streets unsupervised. This is a non-issue.

"...marginalize individual legitimately affected by the issue..." Hopefully they'll learn their lesson and buy a case next time. AlistairMcMillan 21:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Please do not use admin rollback except to deal with clear vandalism. For example, these rollbacks (1, 2, 3, and more) were inappropriate - you should have editied the article and left a descriptive edit summary. Rollback is not an editing tool, it is strictly in place for anti-vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 16:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several inappropriate Coldplay article reverts

I just saw you rollback all of the Manual of Style and WP:Album style fixes I did for Coldplay's singles, EPs and albums, thanks to the Song infobox template not being updated both properly and in conjuction with the edits to the Album infobox. It seems obvious to me that you selectively endorse the revisions to the Manual of Style or the WP:Albums style guide (e.g. bolding article titles in artists' chronologies), as your reverts (intentionally misrepresented in your edit summaries as "copyedits") to various article edits go against the current WikiProject Albums style and the MoS guidelines in terms of undoing En dashes, mm:ss album lengths, and proper track listing style, as well as propogating piping years to "XXXX in music", low added-value links to years and dates as well as duplicate Wikilinks in articles and templates for years, dates, bandnames, release titles, etc.. I'm being BOLD and editing the Song infobox template soon to be more like the Album infobox, as it should be. You should be reasonable enough to understand that the WP:Album standard is meant to be consistantly applied to WP:Songs, regardless of whether anyone has actually updated the Songs infobox template in due course. It's improper that you feel it necessary to revert completely legitimate edits (generally without properly stating the reasons for revert no less) because you feel territorial about various Coldplay articles, which is against guidelines when people are making edits that are both in good faith, and legitimate alongside the style guides. While I don't take it personally, don't intend on getting into an edit war and I'm sure you can rebutt for yourself, I will be stating these issues in the Songs & Albums projects Talk pages in order to clarify that your reverts are misguided and impeding these projects. Please adapt to currently-in-use style guidelines for WP:Albums like most other users have in order for these projects to continue moving forward. - Liontamer 19:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please note that WP:ALBUMS, "is only a guide and you should feel free to personalize an article as you see fit." Likewise, the Manual of Style indicates that ""Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity."

The great thing about Wikipedia is that its guidelines allow users the range and flexibility to improve articles as they see fit. If you look around at song articles like "Lyla" or "Paranoid Android" or album articles like Don't Believe the Truth, Think Tank, , they're great examples of articles that use the existing song guidelines as the base template, but expanding on it in ways that editors see to be useful.

Remember according to the MoS, "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." --Madchester 21:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Writing to Reach You

You've rewritten this to add a set of inaccurate links, an infobox that goes against the Wikiproject version is many ways, and even added "albumstub" despite the fact that it's a single. Why? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Race Infoboxes

Thanks For the help :-), actually starting to look good and get some nice consistency between the different articles of the seasons. AdamJacobMuller 02:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Square One Shopping Centre

Sorry, but I just think the gallery doesn't look very good. It's looks a bit tacky for this article becuase there are only two pictures to put in there, and the pictures don't "crowd" the article to begin with. --Mb1000 18:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reverting your changes in exactly 24 hours. --Mb1000 19:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about if I resize the logo and make it smaller? --Mb1000 23:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to avoid an edit war, but you insist on your erroneous interpreation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I have no choice but to continue to revert. --Mb1000 22:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Race

I have a feeling that your tendency towards being too "protective" of the Amazing Race pages is going to get us into another dispute. Ont he items I've removed from the AR9 article, it is you that are responsible for providing verification of the information (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). You can see I left some things in, because you provided links to verifiable sources. Other things I removed becuase there was no source cited.

Also, see my note on the talk page... we got into it before about you posting spoilers for information not yet aired.... usually referencing unverifiable message board posts. Please, even if you are sure of something, don't post about unaired legs. It's really unfair to our readers. -- Netoholic @ 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response on the AR9 talk page. Fair comments, but you're not grasping the big picture of Wikipedia's goals. :-) --Madchester 19:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template:future tvshow says "It contains information of a speculative nature based on commercials for the show, its website and/ or other advance publicity". Where in the commercials, website, or publicity has it been announced where the starting or final stages were held? -- Netoholic @ 20:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Denver Post has a report of filming at Denver's airport, w. photo of teams and camera crew. --Madchester 20:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then you can add that information ALONG WITH a proper citation (issue date, page, or link to denverpost.com) for that information so that interested people can verify it for themselves. -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (revised)[reply]

You do realize that you made a poor-faith 3RR nommination? That supposed first revert [2] was to correct User:AdamJacobMuller's assumption that all final 3 teams finish the race, when we've seen Bill/Joe (Season 1) and the No-Names (Season 4) get left behind in Alaska and Hawaii respectively. Just because you don't like the direction of the article, doesn't give you the right to call out someone for 3RR, when they never even committed a violation. --Madchester 20:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you broke 3RR is a result of your quick-trigger reversions and ownership tendencies. You didn't like what I did to your article, and reverted without asking me about it or commenting on the Talk page. It is every editors responsibility to post only information which can be verified. Granted, we don't cite every fact, but when you are challenged, you should be able to provide the source of your info. Dismissively reverting with comments like "sources are verfiibale" is just not enough. You didn't give the sources in the first place. Your last edit is an excellent step, and one I encourage you to continue. -- Netoholic @ 20:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of your reverts (lol :-) ), you could have simply asked on my talk page for a source. There's only a small handful of Race msgbaords/fan sites with credible info for us AR editors. Let's put it this way, if an eyewitness spots a team in the wild (like Niagara Falls, the Utah leg, Huntsville Rocket center all from Season 8) where are they going to report it? On the official site? No, it's obviouly on external sites like Suvivor Sucks, TARFlies, TWoP etc.

Anyway, we're all using the same sources, on top of press releases, weekly previews, and the godawful official website. Unless you haven't noticed, I provided a lot of information and reasoning for my revesions on the article talk page; you were the one with the "quick-trigger" tendecies to place a poor faith 3RR nom to dodge the issue.

Cheers, --Madchester 21:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) How about we add links to those external sites which discuss show spoilers? We can't include the speculation here, hands down, but we can be informative and helpful to readers that like that sort of thing. Make some suggestions. You provided reasoning on the talk page but you still didn't follow the guidelines relating to verifiability. I'm sure a skinhead Nazi vandal has their reasons too, but that doesn't mean it's OK. That's an extreme example, but you see the point. Work with me, and we can make this article stand out. -- Netoholic @ 21:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation on The Amazing Race 9

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule on The Amazing Race 9. Carbonite | Talk 20:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Square One Shopping Centre Dispute

I am a member of the AMA and I've been asked to take a look at this page and see if I can't resolve a conflcit invovling pictures. Let me know if it is not too late or if you need assistance. I am willing to be an informal mediator (try to help the parties work out a deal) or an informal arbitrator (here evidence and offer my non-binding opinion). I'd love to be able to help. Just let me know.Gator (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

You are repeatedly in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability on The Amazing Race 9 by:

Inserting the filming dates, citing a Denver Post article, but failing to provide verification information (website link, author, date).
Using links to fan forum posts [3] which cannot possibly be verified - see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources.
Naming "Red Rocks Amphitheatre" as a location. I watched the preview, and I didn't see it or hear them mention it by name.

Stop violating this policy immediately. I insist you revert your recent edits, or otherwise edit the article to satisfy this requirement. Your tendency towards being dismissive and exhibiting ownership attitude has gotten you in disputes in the past. -- Netoholic @ 23:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, instead of using the WP:V card at every instance, take a look to examine the resources provided. Many of these "fan pages" yielded entire legs from races from the past 8 seasons. For example, the Utah leg from this season was leaked a full week in advance. I'm simply being bold in updating pages. There's obviously some cruft sources on those messageboards, but many of them are based on actual media sources (like the three Australian papers for the Perth, Darwin, and Adelaide sightings). You simply need to sort out what's verifiable and what's not from that source.

For Denver Airport photo see The Denver Post (Tuesday, November 8, 2005, (Denver and the West section), it's simply a photo and caption.)

Photo: [4] Photo caption: CBS cameramen for “The Amazing Race” film two race participants Monday as they pass through Denver International Airport. The ninth installment of the reality TV show, which pits teams in an around-the-world race, starts in Colorado and is expected to air in the spring.

Red Rocks Amphitheatre is the starting line, look here for preview vidcaps. If that's not Phil at the starting line at Red Rocks upper bowl, I don't know what it is.

Do you need anymore sources? lol. Just be careful with the language, cuz it's bridging on a personal attack. Cheers.--Madchester 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Square One

Well, it's now a different version. There's more text to go with the pictures. Be a sport. :) --Mb1000 16:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Rendered in Square One Shopping Centre

I have reached and rendered an opinion as an AMA third party neutral with regard to the Square One Shopping Centre article. I hope it helps resolve the dispute.Gator (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In line with the AMA neutral third party opinion by User:Gator1, I have reverted to my last version. --Mb1000 18:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]