![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
How to use talk pages: (guidelines from Template:User talk top)
Archives: 070625- 070920- 071102- 071231
Thanks for suggesting User: Spike Wilbury's name for dispute resolution on David Gilmour article. He has commented on the dispute and i'm sure we'll reach a middle ground on improving the article. Meanwhile, I'm working on getting Hilary Duff article to FA status. Currently it is a GA article. I have listed it for peer review to get a feedback on the article. Any suggestions on improving that article is welcome....Thanks again and a Happy new year !!!! .. Gprince007 ( talk) 07:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to ask, about the edit to HSM 3; aren't info-boxes supposed to not have the spaces? Like this? If I'm wrong, I apologize for wasting your time. Thank you. -- J p G r B 00:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I just did a couple of minutes before you left your message :-) I agree its gotten pretty bad. Its protected for 2 weeks, we'll see what happens after that. Best, Gwernol 02:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to know exactly why TVRage is not a reliable source. We have many editors there who are very dedicated to their work, and work harder than most tv.com editors, but you allow tv.com content and not TVRage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FullHouseDude24 ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been accused of not assuming good faith often enough. Do you find it credible that Image:Img062.jpg is from an editor's camera? I questioned him about it, and he insists that it isn't downloaded. Kww ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The user didn't vandalize Stan Marsh's article. I've removed tags from articles before, thinking that they were dealt with already, and they were put back again because they actually weren't finished yet. Judging by the user's summary, that was probably the case with them. Please do not call it vandalism unfairly. Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 02:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
{{
uw-delete1}}
. As he was doing this type of thing more than a few times, I thought a vandal warning was more appropriate for what he was doing in aggregate. I didn't see just a good faith removal of templates in this case. Anyway, I appreciate your comments and concerns. I agree
WP:AGF is the way things should normally be handled. --
NrDg
03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)The only qualm I have with all that is you seem to agree that it's uncertain whether the user meant to be unconstructive or not. Yet you say it's easier and more effective to give them a vandal warning. Yes, but that's a very legalistic tactic, and it makes Wikipedia seem like a cruel online environment (which some of the policies and the mergist/deletionist users have already done well enough for the time being). Anyway, I'm just thankful that you turned out to be one of the thoughtful, considerate types who realize where potential harm may have been in the way they handled a situation. Too many times have I pleaded with users to be gentler, only to find that they really have no concern for others' reputations at all!
Wilhelmina Will (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Happy editing! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 04:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Am I wrong to say he's best known for being in poorly-reviewed teen films? I'll happily source it, if you wish. 82.11.145.200 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you think you can censor me ,the voice of the people.I am not pleased with what you just did.Vandalism you say?
That was a joke, but if you want to get serious I could sue you for harrassment.
AND IF YOU NOT DOWN WITH DAT THEN WE GOT 2 WORDS FOR YOU F*** YOU.
YA DIG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR.QUATRARIO ( talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There's really no point in keeping around a protected redirect to nowhere... plus the redirect cleanup adminbot will just come along and nuke it... in the meantime, I've just redirected it back to Dancing with the Stars. east.718 at 11:06, January 8, 2008
I have a question as to why pages keep getting edited to delete images I upload. What do I have to do to follow the rules and still be able to upload images to Wikipedia articles. I am asking because I am really new at contributing to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbacani ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that edit on High School Musical 3, the same IP also removed content from Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Just a suggestion, when doing the warning, always start with the "Level-1" warning. That allows other editors to issue the level-2 and so on, that way we can point out a clear procession of warnings in case a block has to be issued. Good eye, keep up the good work!! Edit Centric ( talk) 00:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to put this image from the daily news website on wikipedia's article about the City Tech Tower can i put it up since it says "Use of this website signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy © Copyright 2007 NYDailyNews.com. All rights reserved." the website link is right here [1] so can it be used. Trulystand700
The article appears to be in good condition. I also made an RFPP request for the article. JetLover ( talk) ( Report a mistake) 05:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: [2]. I see this problem on a few of the Caribbean singers. It always makes me laugh. When I owned a hotel down here (on Bonaire, a little north of Venezuela), I had a guest ask me how much of our local population was "African-American". I told her "None, all the Americans that live on the island are white or Asian. About 89% of the people are black, though." Kww ( talk) 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
A few weeks ago there was a discussion initiated by an anon ip about whether to include Walt Disney <derogatory> in the article or not. I know that the info is false and there are no sources to cite it but still a discussion is a discussion. An editor ( User:Threeafterthree) deliberately removed comments from the talk page today (see diff)....i restored the comments with an edit summary stating that "pls dont remove others comments" (see diff)...but he deleted those comments again (see diff). Isn't deleting others' comments against wikipedia policies. I know that we can delete obvious libelious material....but here it was a valid discussion which took place on whether or not to include the said statement in the article.Since the anon ip couldnt cite it, it was not included....but is it ok to delete only his/her comments??? ...The above mentioned editor has been uncivil and disruptive before too as is evident from his talk page.....i just wanted ur opinion on this....thanx... Gprince007 ( talk) 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to bust your chops, but A, I have been here for two years so I "dont need the Sandbox to get started" and B, everything on the Hannah Montana page is true. Was even in my local newspaper. Just because you can't deal with the fact that Disney is a crooked subliminal message using company doesn't mean it is a "joke edit". Tyar ( talk) 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
{{
uw-joke1}}
standard warning template is a pretty subtle response to your edit. I have no problems with the information if is backed up sufficiently. It would be better placed in the
Disney Channel article though as it would apply to all shows, not just this one. --
NrDg
01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Imaginary album continuously being added: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=V_%28Vanessa_Hudgens_album%29&diff=186023727&oldid=186023375
Thanks for any assistance. Kww ( talk) 13:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I tagged those images because they did not have any description of where they came from (i.e. he may have created them, but there was no summary, just licensing (GFDL Self). Even if an image has this tag, I would still think a proper summary stating that the image was created by whomever is appropriate. - MBK 004 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
yo wat fuck is wrong with u she is not from spain she is puerto rican she said it on her myspace dumass bitch if u like spain so mush stick it up your ass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hector Ramos ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I graduated with KAT DELUNA AND SHE'S NOT 19... SHE GRADUATED IN THE CLASS OF 2003. SHE ACTUALLY STAyED BACK... SHE'S NO WHERE NEAR 19. I EVEN WENT TO HER SWEET 16 OUR SOPHMORE YEAR... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.91.242 ( talk) 10:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
None taken. WAVY 10 Fan ( talk) 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Didn't think I said anything in approbiate. GPrince expressed his personal view therefore I express my personal view. I felt his comments are hostile there I replied to his own tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by O1001010 ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I just happened on the page and was reviewing the ongoing discussion about her name change. While I appreciate your desire to keep the article well-sourced, I think you are being a little bit over-aggressive in removing the references. A name change to honor her father hardly seems to be contentious or negative information. I also think you are overstating the poor reputation of the source. It's a pretty major media outlet, and the reporter quotes directly from Miley. Notice also that there are a number of well-respected editors who are advocating the inclusion of the references. I personally think you are treading close to 3rr here, and you should have also out-sourced the protection since you are involved in the dispute. Best, IronGargoyle ( talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I just went thru the entire Talk:Miley Cyrus#Christian section and still dont get it as to why i was seen as a anti-christian by a fellow editor. He said that i made some "offensive statements" about christianity....i dont get it...but if i came across as some anti-christian or some racist fellow then i just want to make it clear that i am neither of them. I never objected to adding of "American christian" categories. The only thing i objected to was the "mention of her religion in the main article" until it affects her in her career or personal life. I justify the use of religion in the main article IF it has influenced the person concerned in a major way. I also gave examples of Madonna,George Bush, Barack Obama, Mahatma Gandhi, George Bush, Mother Teresa,Dalai Lama etc where the mention of their religion is justified because "their belief in their religion and their religious identities shaped their career and ideologies". Miley is too young and her religion has not played a major role yet in her life as compared to famous people mentioned in the prev. sentences. The examples i have given are of people who belong to different faiths, race, religion and nationalities. I deliberately chose these examples so that i'm not branded anti-something again. For the time being i would abide by consensus formed on the talk page which is the way to go on wikipedia.
I read ur message on User talk:O1001010 that's why i thought that i need to clear the air. Once again i wanna clarify that i am not a racist or an anti christian fellow. If i caused any hurt to anyone then i apologize for it. Gprince007 ( talk) 15:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand that these are awards developed by the RIAA... what I mean is, when one says "2x platinum", that automatically indicates that an album has gone multi-platinum. There's no reason to say "2x multi-platinum" because the 2 (or whatever number) shows that the platinum status is multiplied. - eo ( talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
How to use talk pages: (guidelines from Template:User talk top)
Archives: 070625- 070920- 071102- 071231
Thanks for suggesting User: Spike Wilbury's name for dispute resolution on David Gilmour article. He has commented on the dispute and i'm sure we'll reach a middle ground on improving the article. Meanwhile, I'm working on getting Hilary Duff article to FA status. Currently it is a GA article. I have listed it for peer review to get a feedback on the article. Any suggestions on improving that article is welcome....Thanks again and a Happy new year !!!! .. Gprince007 ( talk) 07:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to ask, about the edit to HSM 3; aren't info-boxes supposed to not have the spaces? Like this? If I'm wrong, I apologize for wasting your time. Thank you. -- J p G r B 00:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I just did a couple of minutes before you left your message :-) I agree its gotten pretty bad. Its protected for 2 weeks, we'll see what happens after that. Best, Gwernol 02:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to know exactly why TVRage is not a reliable source. We have many editors there who are very dedicated to their work, and work harder than most tv.com editors, but you allow tv.com content and not TVRage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FullHouseDude24 ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been accused of not assuming good faith often enough. Do you find it credible that Image:Img062.jpg is from an editor's camera? I questioned him about it, and he insists that it isn't downloaded. Kww ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The user didn't vandalize Stan Marsh's article. I've removed tags from articles before, thinking that they were dealt with already, and they were put back again because they actually weren't finished yet. Judging by the user's summary, that was probably the case with them. Please do not call it vandalism unfairly. Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 02:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
{{
uw-delete1}}
. As he was doing this type of thing more than a few times, I thought a vandal warning was more appropriate for what he was doing in aggregate. I didn't see just a good faith removal of templates in this case. Anyway, I appreciate your comments and concerns. I agree
WP:AGF is the way things should normally be handled. --
NrDg
03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)The only qualm I have with all that is you seem to agree that it's uncertain whether the user meant to be unconstructive or not. Yet you say it's easier and more effective to give them a vandal warning. Yes, but that's a very legalistic tactic, and it makes Wikipedia seem like a cruel online environment (which some of the policies and the mergist/deletionist users have already done well enough for the time being). Anyway, I'm just thankful that you turned out to be one of the thoughtful, considerate types who realize where potential harm may have been in the way they handled a situation. Too many times have I pleaded with users to be gentler, only to find that they really have no concern for others' reputations at all!
Wilhelmina Will (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Happy editing! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 04:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Am I wrong to say he's best known for being in poorly-reviewed teen films? I'll happily source it, if you wish. 82.11.145.200 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you think you can censor me ,the voice of the people.I am not pleased with what you just did.Vandalism you say?
That was a joke, but if you want to get serious I could sue you for harrassment.
AND IF YOU NOT DOWN WITH DAT THEN WE GOT 2 WORDS FOR YOU F*** YOU.
YA DIG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR.QUATRARIO ( talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There's really no point in keeping around a protected redirect to nowhere... plus the redirect cleanup adminbot will just come along and nuke it... in the meantime, I've just redirected it back to Dancing with the Stars. east.718 at 11:06, January 8, 2008
I have a question as to why pages keep getting edited to delete images I upload. What do I have to do to follow the rules and still be able to upload images to Wikipedia articles. I am asking because I am really new at contributing to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbacani ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that edit on High School Musical 3, the same IP also removed content from Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Just a suggestion, when doing the warning, always start with the "Level-1" warning. That allows other editors to issue the level-2 and so on, that way we can point out a clear procession of warnings in case a block has to be issued. Good eye, keep up the good work!! Edit Centric ( talk) 00:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to put this image from the daily news website on wikipedia's article about the City Tech Tower can i put it up since it says "Use of this website signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy © Copyright 2007 NYDailyNews.com. All rights reserved." the website link is right here [1] so can it be used. Trulystand700
The article appears to be in good condition. I also made an RFPP request for the article. JetLover ( talk) ( Report a mistake) 05:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: [2]. I see this problem on a few of the Caribbean singers. It always makes me laugh. When I owned a hotel down here (on Bonaire, a little north of Venezuela), I had a guest ask me how much of our local population was "African-American". I told her "None, all the Americans that live on the island are white or Asian. About 89% of the people are black, though." Kww ( talk) 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
A few weeks ago there was a discussion initiated by an anon ip about whether to include Walt Disney <derogatory> in the article or not. I know that the info is false and there are no sources to cite it but still a discussion is a discussion. An editor ( User:Threeafterthree) deliberately removed comments from the talk page today (see diff)....i restored the comments with an edit summary stating that "pls dont remove others comments" (see diff)...but he deleted those comments again (see diff). Isn't deleting others' comments against wikipedia policies. I know that we can delete obvious libelious material....but here it was a valid discussion which took place on whether or not to include the said statement in the article.Since the anon ip couldnt cite it, it was not included....but is it ok to delete only his/her comments??? ...The above mentioned editor has been uncivil and disruptive before too as is evident from his talk page.....i just wanted ur opinion on this....thanx... Gprince007 ( talk) 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to bust your chops, but A, I have been here for two years so I "dont need the Sandbox to get started" and B, everything on the Hannah Montana page is true. Was even in my local newspaper. Just because you can't deal with the fact that Disney is a crooked subliminal message using company doesn't mean it is a "joke edit". Tyar ( talk) 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
{{
uw-joke1}}
standard warning template is a pretty subtle response to your edit. I have no problems with the information if is backed up sufficiently. It would be better placed in the
Disney Channel article though as it would apply to all shows, not just this one. --
NrDg
01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Imaginary album continuously being added: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=V_%28Vanessa_Hudgens_album%29&diff=186023727&oldid=186023375
Thanks for any assistance. Kww ( talk) 13:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I tagged those images because they did not have any description of where they came from (i.e. he may have created them, but there was no summary, just licensing (GFDL Self). Even if an image has this tag, I would still think a proper summary stating that the image was created by whomever is appropriate. - MBK 004 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
yo wat fuck is wrong with u she is not from spain she is puerto rican she said it on her myspace dumass bitch if u like spain so mush stick it up your ass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hector Ramos ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I graduated with KAT DELUNA AND SHE'S NOT 19... SHE GRADUATED IN THE CLASS OF 2003. SHE ACTUALLY STAyED BACK... SHE'S NO WHERE NEAR 19. I EVEN WENT TO HER SWEET 16 OUR SOPHMORE YEAR... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.91.242 ( talk) 10:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
None taken. WAVY 10 Fan ( talk) 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Didn't think I said anything in approbiate. GPrince expressed his personal view therefore I express my personal view. I felt his comments are hostile there I replied to his own tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by O1001010 ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I just happened on the page and was reviewing the ongoing discussion about her name change. While I appreciate your desire to keep the article well-sourced, I think you are being a little bit over-aggressive in removing the references. A name change to honor her father hardly seems to be contentious or negative information. I also think you are overstating the poor reputation of the source. It's a pretty major media outlet, and the reporter quotes directly from Miley. Notice also that there are a number of well-respected editors who are advocating the inclusion of the references. I personally think you are treading close to 3rr here, and you should have also out-sourced the protection since you are involved in the dispute. Best, IronGargoyle ( talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I just went thru the entire Talk:Miley Cyrus#Christian section and still dont get it as to why i was seen as a anti-christian by a fellow editor. He said that i made some "offensive statements" about christianity....i dont get it...but if i came across as some anti-christian or some racist fellow then i just want to make it clear that i am neither of them. I never objected to adding of "American christian" categories. The only thing i objected to was the "mention of her religion in the main article" until it affects her in her career or personal life. I justify the use of religion in the main article IF it has influenced the person concerned in a major way. I also gave examples of Madonna,George Bush, Barack Obama, Mahatma Gandhi, George Bush, Mother Teresa,Dalai Lama etc where the mention of their religion is justified because "their belief in their religion and their religious identities shaped their career and ideologies". Miley is too young and her religion has not played a major role yet in her life as compared to famous people mentioned in the prev. sentences. The examples i have given are of people who belong to different faiths, race, religion and nationalities. I deliberately chose these examples so that i'm not branded anti-something again. For the time being i would abide by consensus formed on the talk page which is the way to go on wikipedia.
I read ur message on User talk:O1001010 that's why i thought that i need to clear the air. Once again i wanna clarify that i am not a racist or an anti christian fellow. If i caused any hurt to anyone then i apologize for it. Gprince007 ( talk) 15:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand that these are awards developed by the RIAA... what I mean is, when one says "2x platinum", that automatically indicates that an album has gone multi-platinum. There's no reason to say "2x multi-platinum" because the 2 (or whatever number) shows that the platinum status is multiplied. - eo ( talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)