Welcome!
Hello, Abrazame, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Karm
a
fist 18:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your welcome! Those links I've had a chance to check out so far are very informative and thought-provoking; some support what I intuited, others are shaping my understanding of this site. I look forward to exploring them all in their entirety. I value the resource of Wikipedia, and hope that my contributions benefit others who do as well, in their accuracy, truth, detail, and appropriateness. I appreciate your invitation to seek your counsel, and may well take you up on it! Thanks again. Abrazame 13:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Because Forever Young is a disambiguation page, I merely cut it down to a list of articles with the same name. — tregoweth ( talk) 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Drn - red titles.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Drn - red titles.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Branigan sol12.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 07:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
i've tried to search on their album and i can't se that the album has been certified. And if this is true please give me some sources. The discography is nominated list so i don't want any unclear facts okay. I hope this is okay with you. -- Alive Would? Sun ( talk) 12:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You where right. sorry. -- Alive Would? Sun ( talk) 12:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I know you're right i've checked it out on the BPI. -- Alive Would? Sun ( talk) 13:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Another thing is, if you want to you can help me with the a-ha and it's related articles. Mostly the a-ha page, the discography and their debut album. -- Alive Would? Sun ( talk) 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"Love Is Reason" didn't have a music video and yes i agree with you. Now i'm talking about your comment. -- Alive Would? Sun ( talk) 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Another thing to consider, is that even thoguh let's say Hunting High and Low was released in 1985, it has sold also after that. No one here is gonna tell me that the album has'nt sold in the USA after it's got its innitial certification in 85 / 86. So the 1 million number should be taken with a pinch of salt. Same with the UK and all other countries. Old albums continue to sell, as new albums are released. To base discography on the innitial certifications the got amny, many years ago is silly.
Their first 3 albums has also been released as a 3 pack. That is also something to take into consideration.
Also much of the sales go through such channels as Amazon and Play. does these sales get registered ?
Mortyman ( talk) 14:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Should sales of the soundtrack including a-ha's contribution here be added to the discography ?
How does this work ?
a-ha has also had their songs feautured on other soundtracks and compilations.
Mortyman ( talk) 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if someone could add these soundtracks to the discography, as I'm not the best at it...:
Unfortunetly I don't have any chart information on these.
Mortyman ( talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This compilation for this cause includes John Lennon's " #9 Dream " performed by a-ha
The cover has not been released anywhere else.
Should also proabably be added.
Mortyman ( talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
a-ha's song has been covered by many artists. Should these also be added to the Discography ?
Mortyman ( talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Her http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/12093/20031013-0000/www.ssn.flinders.edu.au/scanlink/nornotes/vol4/articles/a-ha.htm. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 13:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that you continue to have a problem with Anita Bryant's inclusion in this article. But whether she meant to or not, she waas one of the catalysts for gay emancipation.
Perhaps you are not aware, but I was the one who singlehandedly saved this article from deletion. It was a couple of paragraphs without a single reference. It's not as if I am trying to harm the article by including her, but rather trying to balance the article and term.
Consensus seems to be that she remain, and we do have refs from the NYTimes as well as the one from ladies Home Journal of which you were dismissive. Best, Jeffpw ( talk) 11:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I just made the changes from Cashbox Top 100 singles to Cashbox Top 100 number-one singles for the years 1971, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1991. -- Sd-100 ( talk) 13:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The comment you had placed on the talk page for the Cher discography kinda weird. Why, well most of it is mostly vandalisme. Why, well thats easy most discography which are not C, B, A or a FL have mostly incorrect information and their are now good reasons for having the sales number their, it doesn't have source which means someone just made it up. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 11:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
See this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Chart data a discussion about how many charts should be in a discography. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 11:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Abrazame. I was impressed with the work you did on this page a few months back, but unfortunately the same person was back recently, trying to alter the chart peak positions to their liking. One was from the IP address and one was from the logged in user Jman505, but since both were done within three minutes, I'm pretty confident they are the same person. I reverted both the edits and also alerted user JaGa, with whom I had corresponded about this back in June. But since you put so much effort into this article, I wanted you to know as well. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky ( talk) 01:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't need a lecture from you about what makes a responsible editor. As I've said to you, this has been brought up to the project in the past. I'm not going to drop to my hands and knees and beg other members to get involved in a discussion. It was there on the discussion page, and still is to my knowledge, for anybody to see. I'm looking at this link you've provided and the multi prefix is used in a number of places. If you have such an issue with the use of the multi prefix, then by all means, take it to the project. You cannot, however, call my usage of it incorrect with the RIAA does in fact use it. So, as I said, get a consensus from the project. I'll happily abide by it. The RIAA database uses the multi-prefix while listing certifications for multiple platinum albums or singles. You consider it erroneous and redundant, get a consensus to back you up. Otherwise, my usage of the prefix isn't incorrect. Dislike it all you want, but my editing record speaks for itself. I've always abided by consensus, I follow policy, I don't purposely disrupt articles with various forms of vandalism. If you think you're right, then get a consensus to side with you. Until that happens, however, your opinion is just that, your opinion. Odin's Beard ( talk) 23:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi ! I understand your concern. I've simply gathered the templates and I've organized them in alphabetical order. Feel free to put them as you want. PS: Sorry for my bad English ! Cheers, Europe22 ( talk) 12:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, Thanks for your message. You're free to do the copy-editing now - I was just responding to a few comments on the FL review page. Cheers for your help. 03md ( talk) 10:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for leaving the message on the List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK) talk page. I have successfully reverted the page back to the last FL version. Thanks again for all your help in getting it to FL status. 03md ( talk) 16:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
An amusing comic of me done by my good friend "Ace", based on our real life experience of attending the GLAAD Media Awards. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
new details on the talk page. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Some of the research I did for Janet Jackson on the subject brought up a few interesting points (see: Janet_Jackson#Choreography). Basically, for modern artists who have the ability (thanks to technology) to layer their voice throughout a song, and for those who turn concerts into a "blockbuster film", lip-syncing becomes a necessity, unlike artists who remain predominately motionless throughout a performance. Quite possibly my favorite quote of all time has to be "[e]ven a classically trained vocalist would be hard-pressed to maintain any sort of level of volume—or, more appropriately, " Control"—while bounding up and down stairs and whipping limbs in unnatural directions at impeccable, breakneck speed." While Cher, Madonna and Janet may be performing their own stunts, its unlikely a vocalist/instrumentalist such as Alicia Keys would ever require lip-syncing. And as for Britney Spears...well I think a review by Erika Montalvo & Jackie Sheppard ( UWIRE) said it best:
“ | Some may argue that Spears is not only a good recording artist but also an important cultural icon. Although she has been classified among female elites such as Janet Jackson and Madonna, what does Ms. Spears really have in common with these divas of rock?
Jackson, who started her career with Jackson Five and even spent some time on the television series "Different Strokes," not only had the style and moves of rock star royalty, but also incorporated life struggles along with serious world issues into her music. Her tune evolved along with her maturity, and touched millions of fans on a deeper level-addressing an issue and successfully executing the message to her audience. Madonna, who in her early years can be quoted saying, "I'm going to rule the world," on American Bandstand, far surpassed everyone's expectations. With her constant "on the edge" demeanor, pushing the envelope of what is socially acceptable and what is not, she ignited the wildfire of a female sexual revolution for more than two decades. Madonna's unique expression sometimes hit and sometimes missed, but her name is now a token of immortality as she still holds the title of supreme female rock star in the palm of her hand. Nineteen-year-old Spears, however, has big shoes to fill if she intends on being remembered as one of the greats. While Jackson and Madonna wrote their own music about subjects of importance, Spears' music sounds like an upbeat version of either, "I want to grow up but the media won't let me," or "Here kitty, kitty, I'm wearing my underwear outside of my leather pants"-type ballads. A solid contradiction of the message she is supposedly trying to convey. Tracks on her new album " Britney" include sulkily-clad titles such as "Lonely," "Not A Girl Not Yet A Woman," and "Overprotected," that are enough to perplex a dry-heave from even those musically --challenged. Most girls on the verge of 20 are concerned about college degrees, jobs, independence or even starting families. Not whining about being a real-life Cinderella. |
” |
— Erika Montalvo & Jackie Sheppard , UWIRE (2001) |
The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliments, I didn't think u were just reopening it, I looked at the guys talk and contribs and thought "nutjob" so I just went ahead and archived it. I figured you'd missed it since the edits were so close together so it's all good. :) Soxwon ( talk) 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't personally attack other editors as "lunatics" and "lusting" just because you don't like them. That is unprofessional. Here is the bottom line. You think it fine and normal for Obama to be shown only with Republican senators and never with A Democrat one. You think that is totally normal. I questioned that. You then attacked me in a very rude fashion. Guess what? it's not normal to depict Obama only with Rep senators. I never insulted you - despite your insults and the easy access you gave to such route in your lack of being able to get the fundamental point that 100% is not balanced. You can learn a good lesson from my conduct with you and I hope you try to emulate it in the future. Please be civilized in your discourses. JohnHistory ( talk) 00:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
On allmusic it says both the singles Gloria 2004 and Self Control 2004 were released by Dance Street, obviously making them unoffical. Link Do you know if this is true and if so should I remove them. I am asking because Self Control 2004 was already listed in the article before I edited it. Dell9300 ( talk) 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
As someone who's been tangentially involved with a certain editor, I just wanted to thank you for your post here. The Sartorialist ( talk) 04:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi - Thank you for your patience; I'm still getting the hang of a lot of this. I'm glad to have been made aware of some policies that I was not previously aware of; the reason I deleted the Covers section was because I felt that it was just too long, poorly organized, and, well, unnecessary. Do we truly need a full list of everyone who has ever covered a Rick James song? No, in my opinion; think of how many people have covered The Beatles. Why not just give them all their own article if it matters so much?
If you feel that my ruling in this matter is unjust by Wikipedia standards, fine, you're the one with editing seniority. I still stand by my own personal opinion, however, and will continue to edit articles as I see fit. The great thing about Wikipedia is that if you don't like someone else's work, it's totally within your rights/power to change it. Hence, if I want to change something about an article that I feel is unnecessary, I have every right to do so, and you have just as much right to say that I'm wrong and change it back.
Your fellow philosopher, 62 Misfit ( talk) 22:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional information that you added! I am currently trying to get it reviewed for GA, so your contributions are appreciated. I would like to thank you especially for adding references to your edits, as most people add loads of information without any references. Cheers! Scapler ( talk) 01:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The reason I added Obama to that category is because there was only one other person in it, and a category looks kind of silly with only one article in it. But I trust your judgement, so I won't put it back. Grundle2600 ( talk) 01:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I want to cry, but I can't. She was too magnificent for tears. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Please dont misquote what the sources actually say. We include in our articles what can be verified in sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's not be snarky, let's be editors, who query things with Red Pencil if it's above or below their pay grade to check the fact themselves. I find your edit summary more snarky than mine, especially the "pay grade" bit, and you're assuming quite a lot. As a matter of fact, I did try to determine whether Josh Rotters was qualified to speak on behalf of the entire gay community in the lead section of this article, and although I found his name and his viewpoint on various websites, there was nothing that I could find that established the kind of credentials required for such an attribution. Maybe I missed something crucial, but I looked carefully enough to feel confident that I did not. I didn't see the necessity to ask Red Pencil, and I still don't. There's nothing snarky in noting that someone who lacks the notability for a Wikipedia article should not be cited in a such a high profile manner in this particular article. I also don't think that because I remove something from an article because I believe it to be inappropriate, it is automatically my responsibility to replace it with a more acceptable equivalent. You've done that, and perhaps better than I would have or could have. In any case, if you objected to my edit or my edit summary, it would have been more courteous to discuss it directly with me, rather than making an edit summary that is specifically and obviously aimed at me. My edit summary was about the edit. Your edit summary was about the editor.
But yes, let's be editors. I think it was right of you to remove the essentially bland and empty statements of McClanahan and White, but with the same rationale, I can't see much value in the "cherished friendship" part of Barbeau's quote. Only the first part of the quote is about Arthur's work, and even that is a little vague. Betty White's comment about feeling hurt, though bland, at least seemed sincere and human. Rossrs ( talk) 10:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I just thought I would give you a heads up, that StanMarsh19 is continuing to change CD/song release history dates without a reliable source that you warned him about a little over a month ago. I would appreciate any help you could give me dealing with this user. Aspects ( talk) 00:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
What you wrote about the use of the photo at Violence against LGBT persons was one of the most cogent and compelling comments I have read in my time as a WP editor. It didn't do the trick, unfortunately, but at least the decision was to keep the image. Your remarks certainly must have cemented consensus on that. Rivertorch ( talk) 08:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Gosh, thanks. :) I thought she needed some sprucing. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 06:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you may have made a mistake by attributing an edit to me as a "clear POV violation." I was not the original editor and merely reverted an unsourced edit. QueenofBattle ( talk) 04:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to consider this possible oncoming debate. Point 3 in particular. -- Jazzeur ( talk) 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- and more Rossrs ( talk) 10:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Good Grief!!! Is your name Charlie Brown? Pravda ( means Truth and Yes) has the acumen to know what is down the road for the sheeple in the USA. Obviously, if you don't like an opinion, you see fit to delete it. It is an opinion, which is where i placed it. I hope you are a contributor besides a deleter, but I doubt it....not only are you an invalidator, but you are very naive. I will reinsert it in a years' time, and we'll see who was more correct: you or Pravda. Denial is not a river in Egypt. Perhaps you should take basic economics and re-evaluate realty.
Furtive admirer ( talk) 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for getting the numbers more exact for me. I knew I was close, but not right on. ( Rustydangerfield ( talk) 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC))
Hello, Abrazame. I've replaced old Gallup poll with the new one simply to make Wikipedia more up to date. Approval ratings of politicians are not constant values, so informations about them simply need to be renewed. I don't know why you object to it? Regards. Ammon86 ( talk) 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Can be reported at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors (also available at Talk:Main Page). I've gone ahead and moved your correction there, an admin should see it and fix it shortly. Thanks! -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 01:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I just corrected the Watergate error. Correcting the Main Page requires an administrator (in fact, they made me administrator for that purpose, not to police arguments). Therefore, reporting such errors to WP:ERRORS (at the top of the Main Page's talk page) is exactly the right thing to do. That is the purpose of WP:ERRORS. Thank you! Art LaPella ( talk) 03:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A quick note to say thanks for providing sane and well reasoned inputs on the RfC on the Gun violence page. When I attempted to implement the early consensus, I was blocked for 48 hours, despite never violating 3RR, for "edit warring". Nonetheless, I wanted to say thanks for caring enough to comment. I have also re-opened the RfC there that was closed while I was blocked and unable to comment. Yaf ( talk) 04:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Two quibbles about one edit: "The bill, which includes ... is being distributed over the course of several years...." doesn't seem quite right to me. The bill itself isn't being distributed, its spending (or maybe its stimulative effects) are distributed. And, the sentence is present tense whereas the rest of the section is past tense. I think you had a stylistic direction going, so rather than changing it myself I thought I'd invite you to consider improvements. I liked all your other edits. CouldOughta ( talk) 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Abrazame, I lost track of who I was waiting for for what. Let me know when you make North Korea edits. CouldOughta ( talk) 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As it turns out I am in an earlier time zone, and I'll be happy to look at it a little later (I don't have enough time at the moment but later in the day I will). My immediate reaction is it probably deserves to be deleted, but I'll have a closer look later. So you can turn in. :-) Rossrs ( talk) 08:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, since the Hugh Hefner quote is in a separate paragraph from the Kate Jackson quote, it actually does need its own citation. However, and no disrespect to Farrah, the quotes about her death fairly are tributes and some people would question their inclusion, fwiw. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 05:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry I don't really have the time to contribute that much to that article. I just fix broken links, spelling mistakes, citation errors, etc. Mostly I'm a fixer. I add to math/physics/film articles though. So sorry. -- Curtdbz ( talk) 10:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for cleaning up some of the wording that I had added to the article in the Day 2 section. I really hope that you are also planning to revise the next two sections of hearings, as well, and further help the wording and structure of the description of the hearings, as your recent contribution was extremely helpful. Thanks. Gage ( talk) 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was noticing that Carlin had been linked in the Cher article and was about to link those seven words to the article about the routine when I discovered you had reverted the link to Carlin. Before going ahead with my link, I wanted to understand why you reverted. Clearly Cher meant for the public to think those words, as emphasis to her point of how livid she was. That point is only made, however, if someone knows the routine. The very next paragraph links to "Senator Hillary Clinton" (who, not incidentally, is not currently a Senator, and should probably simply be referred to simply by name and not by title) and "Barack Obama", even though these two individuals are far more self-evident without the link than Carlin or the routine. I thought the point was to link to things that illuminate the meaning of the text so as to avoid having to spell things out. The routine in question, even more than Carlin himself, strikes me as an eminently pertinent link. Abrazame ( talk) 06:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It's really not a big deal. I wasn't sure if the Henry Louis Gates arrest was already discussed on the article's talk page (which is rather long to wade through). Although I wouldn't consider the event to be involved in any sort of lunacy or conspiracy theory, if you believe that it is not notable enough for the article, then perhaps you're right that it doesn't deserve its own "see also" section. It's one of those things that, eight years from now (granted that Obama gets elected again in 2012), people won't really care about or remember too well anyway. Unless, of course, Gates gets arrested again! Lol. Take care.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
My comments have been entered. I support changing the AfD to an RfC. We need to discuss the fate of this article in more detail. -- Bsay@CSU [ π ] 05:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't delete the section from Lady Gaga, it is very important because it changed the public view of her drastically. Please edit, do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricky9981 ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
First, I wanted to say that if your bio is true, it's great to have someone editing at Wikipedia with such an eclectic experience and background. However, there are guidelines here that help keep things on the encyclopedic up-and-up. I noticed your creation of a number of articles for singles from the band Foreigner, one of my favorites. I hadn't even realized there wasn't an article for, say, "That Was Yesterday", which was a gross oversight and thanks for starting one.
However, there are a couple of articles I didn't know were singles and can find no corroborating evidence for their release. Two for example are "I'll Get Even With You" and "Can't Wait". It's important to indicate if a single was released only in a certain territory, or only as a promo. That may be how I overlooked these singles. It's also possible that their inclusion on a compilation, their appearance on an album rock radio airplay chart, or some other such indicator misled you to infer that they were officially released as a single.
I'm not the kind of editor who goes around deleting things or slapping warning tags, but in this case I do request that you find a link to a reliable source that those two songs were indeed official single releases. In any event, it's difficult enough to get bots and policy editors to allow actual photographs of album covers, but your creation of representational images that are not the actual single covers are against policy and don't actually make any sense. The purpose of the picture is to identify the subject of the article, in this case a product, a vinyl single. If there was no picture sleeve, then the photograph is more harm than help in tracking the item down or understanding its promotion. It's a fun, creative fan-site or blog kind of thing, but inappropriate for the encyclopedia.
I notice a lot of other warnings on [your] page but I hope that you understand the value of some of the guidelines here and enjoy constructively contributing to Wikipedia in the future. It might help you to read WP:Reliable Source and WP:Fair Use. Best, Abrazame ( talk) 07:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. As someone like myself who enjoys improving the Obama related articles, I thought you might like to know about a wonderful, reliable new source of information on that topic. The new book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies by Michelle Malkin has 76 pages of endnotes, so everything in the book is well sourced and reliable. The book has also been at #1 on the New York Times Nonfiction Hardcover bestseller list for the past four weeks. First week at #1 Second week at #1 Third week at #1 Fourth week at #1 Given our past cooperation on improving Obama related articles, I am sure that you will be as pleased with this new book as I am. I know that you will enjoy reading it and using it as a source to help improve the various Obama related articles. Please keep up your good work here at wikipedia! Grundle2600 ( talk) 16:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
No problems, no harm done when you work in good faith :) --Legolas (talk2me) 09:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
My comment about Hilary was sexist in the same way not liking Obama is racist. Seriously, when the joke reaches childrens' TV (as it did when I was about six years old)... Sceptre ( talk) 10:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
...at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama got reverted as off topic. I wouldn't have reverted it myself, but won't argue the point.
You had many good things to say, and I suggest you repost them to Grundle's talk page. Which has been busy lately, for obvious reasons. PhGustaf ( talk) 05:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 10, 2009. Yay! I just needed someone to squeal to. :) On another note: have you ever done GA reviews? I'm trying to get Control (Janet Jackson album) to GA. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know that about Adult Contemporary thank you!! Jayy008 ( talk) 21:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too sure. I've just picked this up at 2009 deaths. But what the article really needs is a picture of the man.-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 06:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, i agree about the us of the word "Band" but the article is littered with the same words being used over and over, also it stated that the "Original" members would reunite - this would not be the actual original or founding members.
Group is also used a little too much so if possible that was changed to Boyzone.
Regards
msa1701 ( talk) 08:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Follow up
Good argument and point taken!
Regards
msa1701 ( talk) 09:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there is a cover version of Right Here Waiting by Bryan Adams, I've heard a version that has "fatter" chords and the voice definately sounds like Bryan Adams. Am I mistaken??? -- The One and only Shane91c! ( talk) 13:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Abrazame,
Thanks for your reply. My question was prompted by reading this article, which does use /ɵ/ in its transcription of "Ohio": /ɵˈhaɪ.oʊ/. (It also uses it for some other states, e.g. Iowa /ˈaɪ.ɵwə/.) For some states, that article gives a different IPA from the states' pages themselves, so I'm sorry if that caused some confusion. (You might be interested in getting that page to agree with the state pages in the cases where they differ.)
The project page for transcribing English in IPA, here, does include /ɵ/ and gives "omission" as an example (hence my comment), as well as "kilogram". (It's under the "Reduced Vowels" heading.)
I'm sorry if you thought I was attempting to "degrade" the sounds of Obama's name, which was not my intention. (Had it been so, I wouldn't have used the talk page in the first instance.) /oʊ/ isn't by any means problematic, just less specific. Anyway, this isn't a huge issue for me so I'll leave it now.
Thanks, Lfh ( talk) 11:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Why do you oppose multiple references? Is it simply a redundancy argument, or do you object to the ugly appearance of an article with many examples of three or more footnotes dangling at the end of a single sentence? If it is the former, I don't see the harm being sufficient to create a policy against it. I agree that an uncontroversial fact requires a single reference for explanation. However, I can easily imagine an editor finding a second reference, perhaps discussing the point in a much better way. Useless arguments might ensue if you remove the first reference, based upon your argument that your reference is "better". Easier to simply allow both.
If your argument is that it makes the appearance ugly, I agree. While there are "only" 124 footnotes, many are used multiple times, so there are almost 200 footnotes in a 4000 word article. It is visually ugly.
What I would really like to see happen is to make all footnotes invisible to the reader, and displayable as an option to the reader who wants to check sources, I don't expect that to happen soon. As a fallback, you can put multiple references in a single footnote. While not desired in scientific articles, perhaps it would be acceptable in a non-scientific article. To see an example, check out this sandbox, and note that footnote 1, 5 and others have more than one citation.-- SPhilbrick T 13:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi!, Thank you for your work on the Could've Been You article. Can you take a look also for the Cher filmography? I intend to nominate this for FL... Kekkomereq4 (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for fixing the Ann Jillian article. My bad, mea culpa. Don't know what I was thinking about. Un abrazo, Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 00:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
...we may not always agree, but I certainly have no argument with you. And on Talk:Barack Obama, I think we agree about the content pretty closely. In case you care. Frank | talk 20:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I see that over at Talk:Barack Obama you said, "I'd point out that nobody's really discussing anything at Presidency lately. The entire talk page there is two sections, with only a single, unresponded-to comment in the past month."
Heh heh heh.
I used to post huge amounts of stuff over there, so your comment made me laugh.
Thanks for the belly laugh!
Have a great weekend, and please keep up the good editing!
Happy holidays too.
Take care.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand it either. See here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The archive was twice cut down over the break. First by Wikidemon, and then by Sceptre. In both cases, it was because the talk page had expanded to unreasonable levels due to the activities of one POV pusher (now topic banned) and multiple socks of Multiplyperfect. Increasing the archive time is fine, but was it really necessary to undo the bot? What vitally important threads were saved? -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Good post, and I tend to agree with the points you raised in general. The disappearance of two of the most vociferous and outlandish Falun Gong defenders has indeed turned the tide. It's not at all easy editing there - it remains just as challenging today to achieve the level of quality which I desire as it was two years ago, before any of them were banned. I do agree with you that there needs to be a counterbalance. However, the ambiance is stressful, and I have decided once again to drop the family of articles from my watchlist.
Anyway, the real reason for my post is to satisfy my curiosity: I wanted to ask you why are you sticking up for Happy, who is very doctrinaire and belligerent, instead of asdfg, who is a much more reasonable editor in almost every way? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I have had quite a long working relationship with asdfg, and while I find him occasionally tending to verbosity, he is usually prepared to listen. The change in the editing dynamic due to the presence of the other guy, on the other hand, is very obvious despite his general polite language. I agree that the sanctions meted out to asdfg could have been more nuanced, as the 'all or nothing' topic ban is a blunt instrument. I understand that new discretionary remedies have been made available, and I welcome them. It seems that asdfg has now filed for the topic ban to be lifted, and he has cited your comment above as one of the supporting arguments. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Stop removing my comments from the Obama talk page or I will have you blocked. JB50000 ( talk) 05:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Abrazame! You want to help me to create a Wikiproject releated with Cher for improve all her articles? I will wait your reply :) Kekkomereq4 ( talk) 07:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion of the manned space cancellation was done for several reasons. First of all, even though I am fascinated by America, I don't know a lot about American politics and couldn't begin to edit a political article. Second, introducing a list is an objective way to decide what to add. Once there is a list of 25 items, it may be clear that 6 of them should be included in the article. If just introduced as the events occur, it's difficult to be objective and to not give more weight to one thing but not another due to editors coming for a few days then leaving.
As far as your complaint of my post being a coatrack, I looked up the definition. Right now, that is not a problem. It may or may not be a problem later. Your comment of the Larry King show is either so brillant that normal people don't understand the humor or is, itself, a coat in a coatrack and should be removed. I don't understand the joke or if it is a joke, you may translate.
For the past few months, I always stop editing at the first of the month for a few days so that I will be refreshed each month. I see that I forgot about February so I will stop in a few minutes and return in 1-5 days. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just discovered from last year after looking at several conflicting edits in music articles that I had issue with then. This user 190fordhouse is a continuation of sock puppetry by this user User: 995Star. All those users I've shown are the same person as User: 190fordhouse and their own sock puppets. This person is not a first time offender of sock puppetry, but SECOND TIME. Glad your being very helpful, so I wanted to notify you of this. Carmaker1 ( talk) 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
What is "problematic" from a WP:BLP point of view about a question that Gaga was prepared to answer on national television for Barbara Walters? I've been around on Wikipedia for a long time, but have seldom come across this sort of opposition. The article is not a publicity piece for Gaga, and we are not in a position to second guess her wishes. I am very disappointed about what has happened here.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I generally agree with your viewpoint on the things, but they're still nice to receive occasionally. Thx. Fat&Happy ( talk) 07:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You reverted an edit of mine here a few days ago; I’ve opened a discussion here, if you’d care to join in. Swanny18 ( talk) 17:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
For your thoughtful, polite, and helpful comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-ha and their fans. That was the response I should have written. Nice! Glenfarclas ( talk) 04:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC) |
Hi Abrazame, I thought their should be a section in the Presidency of Barack Obama article about his governments policy towards NASA. There was nothing in the Science and Technology section but I decided to place the image there anyway just because it is an image that involves both Obama and science and technology. Also their are no other images in that section so it helps to break the text up a bit. If you don't think it is relevant then I understand. Originalwana ( talk) 11:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
BLP policy applies to living persons, so reference to it can be discounted straight-off. As the BLP policy explains itself; material "must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines." (bolding mine)
This is content on a talk page, guidelines and policy are therefore different from article pages. Policy here is chiefly to stop people adding libellous original research and opinions that have no credible source, wouldn't ever be permissible on the article, and are not about improving the article. However, as I see it, this is a genuine attempt to discuss sourced information that may be of value to the article. Additionally, you cannot libel a dead person. Whether the link actually backs up the what the editor is suggesting isn't the really point. No-one can discuss and accurately evaluate what is being suggested if a link to the source isn't permitted.
Anyway it appears that the issue you have with the newspaper article is not even what the IP editor is referencing. So your argument appears to be that you shouldn't link to material that sits alongside other material, that isn't permissible on Wikipedia. The fact that the link is actually broken and no longer leads to the article makes your objection doubly confusing. There is also little point in removing or oversighting a link to something that has already been published elsewhere and is not in anyway illegal.
So, in balance, I think removing the link is unproductive censorship and prevents constructive discussion. It also gives a mis-leading impression of the validity of the initial editor's contribution. So usual talk-page decorum should apply, you don't go back and change other's contributions, even if it contains errors, and particularly not when you are also disagreeing with what they are suggesting.
-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, just cause I'd want to know if someone referred to me.-- Asdfg 12345 05:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You took my edit off Obama and said to see talk. There is nothing there. Did you talk? If not, you should, because that is the correct way of doing things. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 23:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted it because it was irrelevant what his father was working on when out popped baby Andrew. Especially in the first sentence of the article. Maybe somewhere else, but not in the first sentence. :) — Mike Allen 08:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
MUCH thanks for that. Can you tell me what I did wrong? I simply copied and pasted the code from the Image reference page - but obviously something I did was not correct.
Thanks, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 23:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hiya! I tried that too on my second (or third?) revision... but I seem to have selected a page with a PNG... maybe that is where I messed up. Anyway, needless to say, I obviously need to spend some more time playing in the sandbox. :-)
Thanks again! RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Please be so good as to show me where I was canvassing support for my position that you accused me of here, Asking another editor to further comment on something that he was intregrally a part of does not in anyway constitute inappropriate canvassing. This is the second time you have made bad faith accusations against me on that page. The first was your referencing my and Rossrs' comments as tag team editing when in fact, the agreement or both commenting does not in any way violate what that page has to say. Asking him to comment too was not telling him what to say or what to support and I would suggest you read much into what was said that was not true. If you knew Rossrs as well as I do, you'd know that no one can tell him what to say. Saying "Perhaps you could too" was a request for him to comment, not how to comment. I object to the meaning you seem to have read into my post and your jumping to the conclusion that I did something wrong. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I actively work against you. That you didn't further respond was a fact, not fancy. The discussion was factually dropped. I also object to your scathing commentary on your view of me posted at Rossrs' talk page and failing in any way to address these same issues with me. I don't view you as an adversary, your position is simply something with which I disagree. There was no reason for your rather extensive summary of how you view me on that page. Please read Rossrs' reply to you about that. He summarizes it well. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I am informing you that I have filed a WP:SPI case which indirectly involves you here. DD2K ( talk) 22:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You know, I agree. The thing is that I researched news archives from 2000 and before the infobox had stated that the release date was November 14, 2000, but I remembered it being a hit on the radio well before Halloween during October 2000. A site stated August 22, 2000 as the release date and to me it initially didn't make sense, considering how I believed it was really late September of 2000, like the 29th or 30th. News articles first start printing information about his "new" single "She Bangs" around late-middle August 2000 and most of it stems from him shooting the music video around August 20, 2000. It probably didn't hit the radio until 1 month and a week later. Glad to know that my unsureness towards August 22, 2000 was justified. Thanks. Carmaker1 ( talk) 05:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Abrazame, I just wanted to congratulate you on your recent Talk:Barack Obama post about reverting the Presidential Styles edit. It was a very diplomatic and well-reasoned response, a nice example of WP:AGF and making newbies comfortable. CouldOughta ( talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, We were just editing the same item at the same time (I Just) Died in Your Arms. The way you changed the dead link to a new link as a ref is cool. I was wondering how to handle it to, Just to touch base with you, I am working on Category:Wikipedia backlog and (I Just) Died in Your Arms just happend to be the first article on the list. Do you work on music ? are you working on dead links ? Just wondering I don't like to step on toes. Mlpearc MESSAGE 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You might not be aware that the word "fanny" is cruder in the UK than in the US... AnonMoos ( talk) 00:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I reverted to my changes regarding Robert Gates. He is the SECOND individual to serve as Secretary of Defense under two different presidents; Donald Rumsfeld was the first (Ford and Bush II). Anybody who knows recent American history will affirm this. So don't change it back and put erroneous info back up.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courthouseman ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I am about six months behind on the Help Desk archives, but I enjoy reading them.
Your topic on the Village Pump has been archived, but I was wondering where one might talk about over-referencing now.
I do this sometimes because it's simpler than having a footnote each time I go from one source to another. The article flows better if I just tkae what several different sources said and don't make a distinction between them. And sometimes two sources say basically the same thing but I can't separate the two because then some important information would be left unsourced, or it would appear to come from a source it doesn't. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard regarding the Talk:Barack Obama page. The thread is Talk:Barack Obama#Citizenship conspiracy theories.The discussion is about the topic of the recent Citizenship conspiracy theories discussion. Thank you. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 06:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
ya sory i do wrong thingi make mistake i sory —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewRiche ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
My apologize for not citing that womanizer was Britney's most successful single in the U.S, I will add a reference to that soon because honestly, I thought that all Britney fans would know that Womanizer is her most successful single in the U.S. So sorry for any mix up I will change it as soon a possible good day and good and happy citing-- UntouchableBritney ( talk) 02:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You've been quoted as an authority on using video as a reference on the talk pages of WP:CITEVIDEO and WP:VIDEOLINK, two policy proposals regarding the use of video on Wikipedia. Just FYI. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 13:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please cite a grammatical source for not capitalizing "senate" and titles like "majority leader" in the Robert Byrd article? Thanks. JTRH ( talk) 22:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The editor who dropped the number of threads to 5 also changed the archive template to {{ aan}} from {{ talkarchivenav}}. I reverted that part of the edit, but you reverted me when you reverted the 5 to 30. Since you didn't explain why, I assume I somehow got caught up in your reversion and reverted you. I thought I'd flag it up for you in case you did mean to do it. - Rrius ( talk) 02:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Just read your message. Do you have an email account? ElMeroEse ( talk) 05:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Good luck trying to get a fair use photographs. Wikipedia is going nuts and deleting anything and everything. Mug shots ARE public domain.I don't think the articles are better of without a photograph. -- Sheitan ( talk) 17:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Well-written and good at explaining the issues. Thanks! -- Habap ( talk) 19:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you added back in the succession boxes in the article for Without You (Badfinger song). While the general opinion in various discussions at WT:CHARTS is leaning against them, a true consensus has not been reached and it would be great if you can add to the discussion to give reasons why you prefer to have them for songs and albums that went to number one on any chart. Thanks. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 04:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not roll back someone's edits made in good faith. Your undoing of my question on the Barrack Obama talk page shows a lack of tolerance for other people who may not be familiar with US politicians. I asked a genuine question and did not expect to have someone such as you delete my query. I was not as you put it 'joking'. Article talk pages are not the private domain of anyone individual. Ozdaren ( talk) 14:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I corrected it. Thank you. ( talk) 68taileddragon 18:04, 2 December 2010 (EST)
Unless you can provide additional references, much of what you added was original research - particularly the "biggest gain in the chamber since 1946" part. -- Scjessey ( talk) 23:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the edit where you removed a mention of Biden's comment that Mubarak is not a dictator and should not step down. Several news organizations have covered this ( [1] [2] [3]), and they all appear to agree that Biden really did mean the excerpt you removed from the article. You claimed it "takes out of context and overstates diplomatic refusal to let an interviewer put words into his mouth", but this is the transcript of the interview, and it does not look to me as having a different meaning in broader context. Missionary ( talk) 03:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I was a bit slow typing this, I'm sorry. I was writing as soon as I reverted your edit. Missionary ( talk) 03:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for catching the edits from i.p. 66.87.0.192 . Did you undo them all? Ocaasi ( talk) 09:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks dude for pointing it out. please also write your opinion in the talk page : ) -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Your comments would be appreciated on this page that may be of interest to you.
I have talked Lear's Fool about it before. I honestly agree with you. I think the image is very graphic for most people. (My girlfriend freaked out when she saw it). I asked Lear's Fool if there was a way to do it so only users who choose to see it can. If you can do it, I would appreciate if did it or showed how to do it. PS: It's sad that we are going to miss you edits for few days but good luck on whatever you are doing during that time. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 12:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, saw your comment at the 2011 Egyptian protests talkpage, where can you see what Wikipedia articles are the largest? Answer here. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in WP:BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.
They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at
WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 21:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see where you explained your recent revert on Talk:Barack Obama. That information was recently added under consensus on that talk page. Have you read the discussion there? Also, "horseflies go without saying" isn't a good edit summary or explanation for the removal of information. I am not familiar with the phrase and I assume it means that controversy is inevitable. Still, that doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the article or anyone's article.-- NortyNort (Holla) 10:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Check out the ITN section :D. The discussion is still ongoing so you can give your opinion if you want. The article needs some update and editing. I would it myself but my boss is up my ass at the moment and I am going to be busy for awhile so if you can help it would be great. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 10:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I must say that your (two) lengthy contribution to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#MF-bomb on Main Page.3F was well said, on target, erudite and entertaining. Well done, Sir .... or Madam as it were. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Tvoz/ talk 07:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I've hatted your comment as it wanders rather off topic from talking about same sex marriages in Brazil, there is some legitimate points in there that are directly related to the topic, so if you wish to refactor your comment to only include comments which directly relate to same sex marriages in Brazil feel free to do so. If you wish to make a more general point about the legalisation of same sex marriage on ITN, probably WT:ITN is the better venue. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 09:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Since you provided feedback at Talk:Grammy_Award#Grammy_Award_for_Song_of_the_Year, you may have an opinion at Talk:The_Beatles#Template_removal.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:The_Beatles#Template_removal.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey dude, its been a long time. Hope you did well on your exams. I need your help. I want someone other than me to start an article about "Hamzah Ali Al khateeb". Here is some of the info I could gather about the subject:
Hamzah Ali Alkhateeb ( Arabic: حمزة الخطيب) was 13 yrs old boy who went with his family from Aljeezah in the march to break the siege in Deraa, he was among the unlucky hundreds detained during the massacre of Seda in front of the army barrier. Hamzah's dead body was later handed over to his family with clear traces of torture, bruises all over his body, bullets have penetrated his corp, and even more... his gentile was cut and then he was killed. Hamzah is only one of the thousands of victims of the murderous regime of Alassad. The story of Hamza is unfortunately one of many. There are many men, women, children, elderly who have yet to be returned to their families. One cannot fathom the amount of torture inflicted upon these unarmed civilians by the hateful and barbaric Syrian regime.
I would write about it myself but I dont I can do it with a NPOV. Im too angry to do it so Im asking you to because I trust you and think you will be able to keep a NPOV on the topic. I'll let you know if I find more info about him. Thanks for your help and support -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 00:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It's nothing but sad news all around us, I think Im getting kinda of depressed to honest with you. I wake up everyday know expecting some horrible news about someone horrible death. I try to keep myself sane by picturing a better future for humanity but I think Im loosing my faith in mankind. Sometimes I pray to a god I dont believe in to make the day pass without some poor soul suffering a horrible death. I hope I didnt bring you down with me :) -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 05:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Please note that the section header is just a short cut link from the ToC, not a proposal for the content of the blurb. It should be no longer than necessary to alert editors to the existence of the discussion. If it is lengthy, especially since the introduction of posted/ready/pulled notifications, the ToC interferes with the template display. (no idea how is was POV to call it a reduction, but that's not the point here) Kevin McE ( talk) 11:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Before we actually start edit warring over this, we should use the talk page. Edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion, and are an ineffective means for carrying out debates over article content since they require reverting to make our points. Thanks. -- Anentiresleeve ( talk) 21:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi t | c 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Listen, I need your help. We need to write about the arrests revolutionaries by the Egyptian military. I have started it but I need all the help that I can get. I think the overall number is around 7,000 whom have faced military trails! let me know if you can help :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 07:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reasoned comments in this discussion. Alas, the article itself has become a media circus. Liberal Classic ( talk) 17:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I hit enter before finishing my edit summary restoring the sources you removed from the Anthony Weiner article lead - so I did not explain why I re-added the sources. It is a controversial matter, and should have sources, allowed under WP LEAD. Also, having the sources removed will just result in someone removing the simple statements as unsourced. Finally, I am wondering why you believe it is insignificant and not lead material that he says he will not resign? --Regards-- KeptSouth ( talk) 12:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
You say the police have said the visit was harmless. Obviously it wouldn't have happened except for the larger scandal. Can you point to some sort of ref saying he has been exonerated or nothing was found? I haven't heard any such thing, although the press doesn't always print such negative results. Noting such an exoneration would be part of a comprehensive entry. Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 21:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Please take this as a 3RR revert warning, thanks Off2riorob ( talk) 22:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, you're being talked about at WP:ANI, and your input would be useful. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Abrazame, please don't make deletions to the article and THEN invite discussion on the discussion page...that's not how it's supposed to work. Consensus first, edits later. Thanks - -- WriterIN ( talk) 05:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could give you opinion on the picture nomination to be a featured picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 08:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey dude, how are you? Glad to see you back. I managed to update and expand Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and Human rights in Egypt under the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces among other thing that I have been working on. I still need some help tho with both article. If you can help, then I think we need to start with Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Supreme Council of the Armed Forces seeing how its gonna be in ITN. Let me know if you are in. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 23:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could give you opinion on the picture nomination to be a featured picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 15:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc ( talk) 00:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Excellent work, thanks. I especially appreciated the reference to my SS interview. Dave Golland ( talk) 20:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey, you should take a look on Cher's article at the Wikipedia in portuguese. It's well ilustrated, very well written, complete and have a big number of references. It's also a featured article. You may translate it to english. Lordelliott ( talk) 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher
Hi. The article ' Solitaire (Laura Branigan song)' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?
Dead:
http://infodisc.siteinternet.com/SongMp.php?debut=11100
This link is marked with {{ Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!
PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{
Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}}
to your user page or user talk page.
BlevintronBot (
talk) 23:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Abrazame,
Thank you for contacting me on this issue! The reason I removed the word "worldwide" from the title of the List of best-selling singles article is because no singles are produced outside of the world; to say that this is the list of best-selling singles and not to specify "in the United States" or "in Japan", for example, is to write an all-encompassing list of best-selling singles. Think about List of sovereign states. We could rename that article "List of sovereign states worldwide", but to do so would be redundant because, when there is no specification, the article is all-encompassing. We could tack the word "worldwide" onto the end of many article titles, but we don't because the things listed on those articles don't exist outside the world. If, for example, there were colonies of people living on other planets and they had best-selling singles as well, then it would make sense for us to have an article called "List of best-selling singles worldwide" because the word "worldwide" would make the article's scope more specific, but as singles are only sold in the world, to add the word "worldwide" is not to make the article's scope any more specific. Please let me know if I haven't explained my understanding of the situation sufficiently clearly or if you would like to discuss this topic further.
On a separate note, your talk page is becoming considerably long, so you may want to consider archiving it. Archival is useful for other users who are trying to access your talk page but have slow computers that can't load really long pages. Detailed instructions about how to archive talk pages are located here.
Neelix ( talk) 17:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Abrazame! It's been ages, I know. I just had a fascinating talk with a researcher named Heather Ford about what it was like to edit the 2011 Egyptian Revolution article during the heat of the protests and overthrow of Mubarak. She's very interested in hearing from other editors who were heavily involved in writing and discussing that page. I don't know if you've read her report Wikipedia Sources: Managing sources in rapidly evolving global news articles on the English Wikipedia but it mentions you and Lihaas and Silverseren and Egyptian Liberal, and goes into some detail about the debates and decisions we made. I think you'd really enjoy talking to her. If you're interested, she'd love you to contact her at your convenience at hfordsa@gmail.com. Hope you're doing well! Ocaasi t | c 20:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Branigan sol12.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 09:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:LB "I Found Someone" 7" picture cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article Mama (Umberto Tozzi and Laura Branigan song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable track not released as a single by either artist. No actual content appears to have been added since the article's creation in 2006; a quick BEFORE search doesn't give any notable publications about song.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
AngyFireFox (
talk) 04:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Abrazame, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Karm
a
fist 18:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your welcome! Those links I've had a chance to check out so far are very informative and thought-provoking; some support what I intuited, others are shaping my understanding of this site. I look forward to exploring them all in their entirety. I value the resource of Wikipedia, and hope that my contributions benefit others who do as well, in their accuracy, truth, detail, and appropriateness. I appreciate your invitation to seek your counsel, and may well take you up on it! Thanks again. Abrazame 13:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Because Forever Young is a disambiguation page, I merely cut it down to a list of articles with the same name. — tregoweth ( talk) 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Drn - red titles.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Drn - red titles.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Branigan sol12.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 07:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
i've tried to search on their album and i can't se that the album has been certified. And if this is true please give me some sources. The discography is nominated list so i don't want any unclear facts okay. I hope this is okay with you. -- Alive Would? Sun ( talk) 12:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You where right. sorry. -- Alive Would? Sun ( talk) 12:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I know you're right i've checked it out on the BPI. -- Alive Would? Sun ( talk) 13:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Another thing is, if you want to you can help me with the a-ha and it's related articles. Mostly the a-ha page, the discography and their debut album. -- Alive Would? Sun ( talk) 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"Love Is Reason" didn't have a music video and yes i agree with you. Now i'm talking about your comment. -- Alive Would? Sun ( talk) 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Another thing to consider, is that even thoguh let's say Hunting High and Low was released in 1985, it has sold also after that. No one here is gonna tell me that the album has'nt sold in the USA after it's got its innitial certification in 85 / 86. So the 1 million number should be taken with a pinch of salt. Same with the UK and all other countries. Old albums continue to sell, as new albums are released. To base discography on the innitial certifications the got amny, many years ago is silly.
Their first 3 albums has also been released as a 3 pack. That is also something to take into consideration.
Also much of the sales go through such channels as Amazon and Play. does these sales get registered ?
Mortyman ( talk) 14:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Should sales of the soundtrack including a-ha's contribution here be added to the discography ?
How does this work ?
a-ha has also had their songs feautured on other soundtracks and compilations.
Mortyman ( talk) 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if someone could add these soundtracks to the discography, as I'm not the best at it...:
Unfortunetly I don't have any chart information on these.
Mortyman ( talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This compilation for this cause includes John Lennon's " #9 Dream " performed by a-ha
The cover has not been released anywhere else.
Should also proabably be added.
Mortyman ( talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
a-ha's song has been covered by many artists. Should these also be added to the Discography ?
Mortyman ( talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Her http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/12093/20031013-0000/www.ssn.flinders.edu.au/scanlink/nornotes/vol4/articles/a-ha.htm. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 13:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that you continue to have a problem with Anita Bryant's inclusion in this article. But whether she meant to or not, she waas one of the catalysts for gay emancipation.
Perhaps you are not aware, but I was the one who singlehandedly saved this article from deletion. It was a couple of paragraphs without a single reference. It's not as if I am trying to harm the article by including her, but rather trying to balance the article and term.
Consensus seems to be that she remain, and we do have refs from the NYTimes as well as the one from ladies Home Journal of which you were dismissive. Best, Jeffpw ( talk) 11:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I just made the changes from Cashbox Top 100 singles to Cashbox Top 100 number-one singles for the years 1971, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1991. -- Sd-100 ( talk) 13:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The comment you had placed on the talk page for the Cher discography kinda weird. Why, well most of it is mostly vandalisme. Why, well thats easy most discography which are not C, B, A or a FL have mostly incorrect information and their are now good reasons for having the sales number their, it doesn't have source which means someone just made it up. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 11:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
See this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Chart data a discussion about how many charts should be in a discography. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 11:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Abrazame. I was impressed with the work you did on this page a few months back, but unfortunately the same person was back recently, trying to alter the chart peak positions to their liking. One was from the IP address and one was from the logged in user Jman505, but since both were done within three minutes, I'm pretty confident they are the same person. I reverted both the edits and also alerted user JaGa, with whom I had corresponded about this back in June. But since you put so much effort into this article, I wanted you to know as well. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky ( talk) 01:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't need a lecture from you about what makes a responsible editor. As I've said to you, this has been brought up to the project in the past. I'm not going to drop to my hands and knees and beg other members to get involved in a discussion. It was there on the discussion page, and still is to my knowledge, for anybody to see. I'm looking at this link you've provided and the multi prefix is used in a number of places. If you have such an issue with the use of the multi prefix, then by all means, take it to the project. You cannot, however, call my usage of it incorrect with the RIAA does in fact use it. So, as I said, get a consensus from the project. I'll happily abide by it. The RIAA database uses the multi-prefix while listing certifications for multiple platinum albums or singles. You consider it erroneous and redundant, get a consensus to back you up. Otherwise, my usage of the prefix isn't incorrect. Dislike it all you want, but my editing record speaks for itself. I've always abided by consensus, I follow policy, I don't purposely disrupt articles with various forms of vandalism. If you think you're right, then get a consensus to side with you. Until that happens, however, your opinion is just that, your opinion. Odin's Beard ( talk) 23:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi ! I understand your concern. I've simply gathered the templates and I've organized them in alphabetical order. Feel free to put them as you want. PS: Sorry for my bad English ! Cheers, Europe22 ( talk) 12:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi mate, Thanks for your message. You're free to do the copy-editing now - I was just responding to a few comments on the FL review page. Cheers for your help. 03md ( talk) 10:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for leaving the message on the List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK) talk page. I have successfully reverted the page back to the last FL version. Thanks again for all your help in getting it to FL status. 03md ( talk) 16:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
An amusing comic of me done by my good friend "Ace", based on our real life experience of attending the GLAAD Media Awards. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
new details on the talk page. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Some of the research I did for Janet Jackson on the subject brought up a few interesting points (see: Janet_Jackson#Choreography). Basically, for modern artists who have the ability (thanks to technology) to layer their voice throughout a song, and for those who turn concerts into a "blockbuster film", lip-syncing becomes a necessity, unlike artists who remain predominately motionless throughout a performance. Quite possibly my favorite quote of all time has to be "[e]ven a classically trained vocalist would be hard-pressed to maintain any sort of level of volume—or, more appropriately, " Control"—while bounding up and down stairs and whipping limbs in unnatural directions at impeccable, breakneck speed." While Cher, Madonna and Janet may be performing their own stunts, its unlikely a vocalist/instrumentalist such as Alicia Keys would ever require lip-syncing. And as for Britney Spears...well I think a review by Erika Montalvo & Jackie Sheppard ( UWIRE) said it best:
“ | Some may argue that Spears is not only a good recording artist but also an important cultural icon. Although she has been classified among female elites such as Janet Jackson and Madonna, what does Ms. Spears really have in common with these divas of rock?
Jackson, who started her career with Jackson Five and even spent some time on the television series "Different Strokes," not only had the style and moves of rock star royalty, but also incorporated life struggles along with serious world issues into her music. Her tune evolved along with her maturity, and touched millions of fans on a deeper level-addressing an issue and successfully executing the message to her audience. Madonna, who in her early years can be quoted saying, "I'm going to rule the world," on American Bandstand, far surpassed everyone's expectations. With her constant "on the edge" demeanor, pushing the envelope of what is socially acceptable and what is not, she ignited the wildfire of a female sexual revolution for more than two decades. Madonna's unique expression sometimes hit and sometimes missed, but her name is now a token of immortality as she still holds the title of supreme female rock star in the palm of her hand. Nineteen-year-old Spears, however, has big shoes to fill if she intends on being remembered as one of the greats. While Jackson and Madonna wrote their own music about subjects of importance, Spears' music sounds like an upbeat version of either, "I want to grow up but the media won't let me," or "Here kitty, kitty, I'm wearing my underwear outside of my leather pants"-type ballads. A solid contradiction of the message she is supposedly trying to convey. Tracks on her new album " Britney" include sulkily-clad titles such as "Lonely," "Not A Girl Not Yet A Woman," and "Overprotected," that are enough to perplex a dry-heave from even those musically --challenged. Most girls on the verge of 20 are concerned about college degrees, jobs, independence or even starting families. Not whining about being a real-life Cinderella. |
” |
— Erika Montalvo & Jackie Sheppard , UWIRE (2001) |
The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliments, I didn't think u were just reopening it, I looked at the guys talk and contribs and thought "nutjob" so I just went ahead and archived it. I figured you'd missed it since the edits were so close together so it's all good. :) Soxwon ( talk) 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't personally attack other editors as "lunatics" and "lusting" just because you don't like them. That is unprofessional. Here is the bottom line. You think it fine and normal for Obama to be shown only with Republican senators and never with A Democrat one. You think that is totally normal. I questioned that. You then attacked me in a very rude fashion. Guess what? it's not normal to depict Obama only with Rep senators. I never insulted you - despite your insults and the easy access you gave to such route in your lack of being able to get the fundamental point that 100% is not balanced. You can learn a good lesson from my conduct with you and I hope you try to emulate it in the future. Please be civilized in your discourses. JohnHistory ( talk) 00:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
On allmusic it says both the singles Gloria 2004 and Self Control 2004 were released by Dance Street, obviously making them unoffical. Link Do you know if this is true and if so should I remove them. I am asking because Self Control 2004 was already listed in the article before I edited it. Dell9300 ( talk) 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
As someone who's been tangentially involved with a certain editor, I just wanted to thank you for your post here. The Sartorialist ( talk) 04:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi - Thank you for your patience; I'm still getting the hang of a lot of this. I'm glad to have been made aware of some policies that I was not previously aware of; the reason I deleted the Covers section was because I felt that it was just too long, poorly organized, and, well, unnecessary. Do we truly need a full list of everyone who has ever covered a Rick James song? No, in my opinion; think of how many people have covered The Beatles. Why not just give them all their own article if it matters so much?
If you feel that my ruling in this matter is unjust by Wikipedia standards, fine, you're the one with editing seniority. I still stand by my own personal opinion, however, and will continue to edit articles as I see fit. The great thing about Wikipedia is that if you don't like someone else's work, it's totally within your rights/power to change it. Hence, if I want to change something about an article that I feel is unnecessary, I have every right to do so, and you have just as much right to say that I'm wrong and change it back.
Your fellow philosopher, 62 Misfit ( talk) 22:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional information that you added! I am currently trying to get it reviewed for GA, so your contributions are appreciated. I would like to thank you especially for adding references to your edits, as most people add loads of information without any references. Cheers! Scapler ( talk) 01:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The reason I added Obama to that category is because there was only one other person in it, and a category looks kind of silly with only one article in it. But I trust your judgement, so I won't put it back. Grundle2600 ( talk) 01:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I want to cry, but I can't. She was too magnificent for tears. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Please dont misquote what the sources actually say. We include in our articles what can be verified in sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's not be snarky, let's be editors, who query things with Red Pencil if it's above or below their pay grade to check the fact themselves. I find your edit summary more snarky than mine, especially the "pay grade" bit, and you're assuming quite a lot. As a matter of fact, I did try to determine whether Josh Rotters was qualified to speak on behalf of the entire gay community in the lead section of this article, and although I found his name and his viewpoint on various websites, there was nothing that I could find that established the kind of credentials required for such an attribution. Maybe I missed something crucial, but I looked carefully enough to feel confident that I did not. I didn't see the necessity to ask Red Pencil, and I still don't. There's nothing snarky in noting that someone who lacks the notability for a Wikipedia article should not be cited in a such a high profile manner in this particular article. I also don't think that because I remove something from an article because I believe it to be inappropriate, it is automatically my responsibility to replace it with a more acceptable equivalent. You've done that, and perhaps better than I would have or could have. In any case, if you objected to my edit or my edit summary, it would have been more courteous to discuss it directly with me, rather than making an edit summary that is specifically and obviously aimed at me. My edit summary was about the edit. Your edit summary was about the editor.
But yes, let's be editors. I think it was right of you to remove the essentially bland and empty statements of McClanahan and White, but with the same rationale, I can't see much value in the "cherished friendship" part of Barbeau's quote. Only the first part of the quote is about Arthur's work, and even that is a little vague. Betty White's comment about feeling hurt, though bland, at least seemed sincere and human. Rossrs ( talk) 10:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I just thought I would give you a heads up, that StanMarsh19 is continuing to change CD/song release history dates without a reliable source that you warned him about a little over a month ago. I would appreciate any help you could give me dealing with this user. Aspects ( talk) 00:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
What you wrote about the use of the photo at Violence against LGBT persons was one of the most cogent and compelling comments I have read in my time as a WP editor. It didn't do the trick, unfortunately, but at least the decision was to keep the image. Your remarks certainly must have cemented consensus on that. Rivertorch ( talk) 08:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Gosh, thanks. :) I thought she needed some sprucing. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 06:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you may have made a mistake by attributing an edit to me as a "clear POV violation." I was not the original editor and merely reverted an unsourced edit. QueenofBattle ( talk) 04:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to consider this possible oncoming debate. Point 3 in particular. -- Jazzeur ( talk) 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- and more Rossrs ( talk) 10:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Good Grief!!! Is your name Charlie Brown? Pravda ( means Truth and Yes) has the acumen to know what is down the road for the sheeple in the USA. Obviously, if you don't like an opinion, you see fit to delete it. It is an opinion, which is where i placed it. I hope you are a contributor besides a deleter, but I doubt it....not only are you an invalidator, but you are very naive. I will reinsert it in a years' time, and we'll see who was more correct: you or Pravda. Denial is not a river in Egypt. Perhaps you should take basic economics and re-evaluate realty.
Furtive admirer ( talk) 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for getting the numbers more exact for me. I knew I was close, but not right on. ( Rustydangerfield ( talk) 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC))
Hello, Abrazame. I've replaced old Gallup poll with the new one simply to make Wikipedia more up to date. Approval ratings of politicians are not constant values, so informations about them simply need to be renewed. I don't know why you object to it? Regards. Ammon86 ( talk) 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Can be reported at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors (also available at Talk:Main Page). I've gone ahead and moved your correction there, an admin should see it and fix it shortly. Thanks! -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 01:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I just corrected the Watergate error. Correcting the Main Page requires an administrator (in fact, they made me administrator for that purpose, not to police arguments). Therefore, reporting such errors to WP:ERRORS (at the top of the Main Page's talk page) is exactly the right thing to do. That is the purpose of WP:ERRORS. Thank you! Art LaPella ( talk) 03:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A quick note to say thanks for providing sane and well reasoned inputs on the RfC on the Gun violence page. When I attempted to implement the early consensus, I was blocked for 48 hours, despite never violating 3RR, for "edit warring". Nonetheless, I wanted to say thanks for caring enough to comment. I have also re-opened the RfC there that was closed while I was blocked and unable to comment. Yaf ( talk) 04:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Two quibbles about one edit: "The bill, which includes ... is being distributed over the course of several years...." doesn't seem quite right to me. The bill itself isn't being distributed, its spending (or maybe its stimulative effects) are distributed. And, the sentence is present tense whereas the rest of the section is past tense. I think you had a stylistic direction going, so rather than changing it myself I thought I'd invite you to consider improvements. I liked all your other edits. CouldOughta ( talk) 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Abrazame, I lost track of who I was waiting for for what. Let me know when you make North Korea edits. CouldOughta ( talk) 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As it turns out I am in an earlier time zone, and I'll be happy to look at it a little later (I don't have enough time at the moment but later in the day I will). My immediate reaction is it probably deserves to be deleted, but I'll have a closer look later. So you can turn in. :-) Rossrs ( talk) 08:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, since the Hugh Hefner quote is in a separate paragraph from the Kate Jackson quote, it actually does need its own citation. However, and no disrespect to Farrah, the quotes about her death fairly are tributes and some people would question their inclusion, fwiw. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 05:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry I don't really have the time to contribute that much to that article. I just fix broken links, spelling mistakes, citation errors, etc. Mostly I'm a fixer. I add to math/physics/film articles though. So sorry. -- Curtdbz ( talk) 10:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for cleaning up some of the wording that I had added to the article in the Day 2 section. I really hope that you are also planning to revise the next two sections of hearings, as well, and further help the wording and structure of the description of the hearings, as your recent contribution was extremely helpful. Thanks. Gage ( talk) 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was noticing that Carlin had been linked in the Cher article and was about to link those seven words to the article about the routine when I discovered you had reverted the link to Carlin. Before going ahead with my link, I wanted to understand why you reverted. Clearly Cher meant for the public to think those words, as emphasis to her point of how livid she was. That point is only made, however, if someone knows the routine. The very next paragraph links to "Senator Hillary Clinton" (who, not incidentally, is not currently a Senator, and should probably simply be referred to simply by name and not by title) and "Barack Obama", even though these two individuals are far more self-evident without the link than Carlin or the routine. I thought the point was to link to things that illuminate the meaning of the text so as to avoid having to spell things out. The routine in question, even more than Carlin himself, strikes me as an eminently pertinent link. Abrazame ( talk) 06:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It's really not a big deal. I wasn't sure if the Henry Louis Gates arrest was already discussed on the article's talk page (which is rather long to wade through). Although I wouldn't consider the event to be involved in any sort of lunacy or conspiracy theory, if you believe that it is not notable enough for the article, then perhaps you're right that it doesn't deserve its own "see also" section. It's one of those things that, eight years from now (granted that Obama gets elected again in 2012), people won't really care about or remember too well anyway. Unless, of course, Gates gets arrested again! Lol. Take care.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
My comments have been entered. I support changing the AfD to an RfC. We need to discuss the fate of this article in more detail. -- Bsay@CSU [ π ] 05:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't delete the section from Lady Gaga, it is very important because it changed the public view of her drastically. Please edit, do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricky9981 ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
First, I wanted to say that if your bio is true, it's great to have someone editing at Wikipedia with such an eclectic experience and background. However, there are guidelines here that help keep things on the encyclopedic up-and-up. I noticed your creation of a number of articles for singles from the band Foreigner, one of my favorites. I hadn't even realized there wasn't an article for, say, "That Was Yesterday", which was a gross oversight and thanks for starting one.
However, there are a couple of articles I didn't know were singles and can find no corroborating evidence for their release. Two for example are "I'll Get Even With You" and "Can't Wait". It's important to indicate if a single was released only in a certain territory, or only as a promo. That may be how I overlooked these singles. It's also possible that their inclusion on a compilation, their appearance on an album rock radio airplay chart, or some other such indicator misled you to infer that they were officially released as a single.
I'm not the kind of editor who goes around deleting things or slapping warning tags, but in this case I do request that you find a link to a reliable source that those two songs were indeed official single releases. In any event, it's difficult enough to get bots and policy editors to allow actual photographs of album covers, but your creation of representational images that are not the actual single covers are against policy and don't actually make any sense. The purpose of the picture is to identify the subject of the article, in this case a product, a vinyl single. If there was no picture sleeve, then the photograph is more harm than help in tracking the item down or understanding its promotion. It's a fun, creative fan-site or blog kind of thing, but inappropriate for the encyclopedia.
I notice a lot of other warnings on [your] page but I hope that you understand the value of some of the guidelines here and enjoy constructively contributing to Wikipedia in the future. It might help you to read WP:Reliable Source and WP:Fair Use. Best, Abrazame ( talk) 07:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. As someone like myself who enjoys improving the Obama related articles, I thought you might like to know about a wonderful, reliable new source of information on that topic. The new book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies by Michelle Malkin has 76 pages of endnotes, so everything in the book is well sourced and reliable. The book has also been at #1 on the New York Times Nonfiction Hardcover bestseller list for the past four weeks. First week at #1 Second week at #1 Third week at #1 Fourth week at #1 Given our past cooperation on improving Obama related articles, I am sure that you will be as pleased with this new book as I am. I know that you will enjoy reading it and using it as a source to help improve the various Obama related articles. Please keep up your good work here at wikipedia! Grundle2600 ( talk) 16:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
No problems, no harm done when you work in good faith :) --Legolas (talk2me) 09:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
My comment about Hilary was sexist in the same way not liking Obama is racist. Seriously, when the joke reaches childrens' TV (as it did when I was about six years old)... Sceptre ( talk) 10:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
...at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama got reverted as off topic. I wouldn't have reverted it myself, but won't argue the point.
You had many good things to say, and I suggest you repost them to Grundle's talk page. Which has been busy lately, for obvious reasons. PhGustaf ( talk) 05:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 10, 2009. Yay! I just needed someone to squeal to. :) On another note: have you ever done GA reviews? I'm trying to get Control (Janet Jackson album) to GA. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know that about Adult Contemporary thank you!! Jayy008 ( talk) 21:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too sure. I've just picked this up at 2009 deaths. But what the article really needs is a picture of the man.-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 06:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, i agree about the us of the word "Band" but the article is littered with the same words being used over and over, also it stated that the "Original" members would reunite - this would not be the actual original or founding members.
Group is also used a little too much so if possible that was changed to Boyzone.
Regards
msa1701 ( talk) 08:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Follow up
Good argument and point taken!
Regards
msa1701 ( talk) 09:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there is a cover version of Right Here Waiting by Bryan Adams, I've heard a version that has "fatter" chords and the voice definately sounds like Bryan Adams. Am I mistaken??? -- The One and only Shane91c! ( talk) 13:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Abrazame,
Thanks for your reply. My question was prompted by reading this article, which does use /ɵ/ in its transcription of "Ohio": /ɵˈhaɪ.oʊ/. (It also uses it for some other states, e.g. Iowa /ˈaɪ.ɵwə/.) For some states, that article gives a different IPA from the states' pages themselves, so I'm sorry if that caused some confusion. (You might be interested in getting that page to agree with the state pages in the cases where they differ.)
The project page for transcribing English in IPA, here, does include /ɵ/ and gives "omission" as an example (hence my comment), as well as "kilogram". (It's under the "Reduced Vowels" heading.)
I'm sorry if you thought I was attempting to "degrade" the sounds of Obama's name, which was not my intention. (Had it been so, I wouldn't have used the talk page in the first instance.) /oʊ/ isn't by any means problematic, just less specific. Anyway, this isn't a huge issue for me so I'll leave it now.
Thanks, Lfh ( talk) 11:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Why do you oppose multiple references? Is it simply a redundancy argument, or do you object to the ugly appearance of an article with many examples of three or more footnotes dangling at the end of a single sentence? If it is the former, I don't see the harm being sufficient to create a policy against it. I agree that an uncontroversial fact requires a single reference for explanation. However, I can easily imagine an editor finding a second reference, perhaps discussing the point in a much better way. Useless arguments might ensue if you remove the first reference, based upon your argument that your reference is "better". Easier to simply allow both.
If your argument is that it makes the appearance ugly, I agree. While there are "only" 124 footnotes, many are used multiple times, so there are almost 200 footnotes in a 4000 word article. It is visually ugly.
What I would really like to see happen is to make all footnotes invisible to the reader, and displayable as an option to the reader who wants to check sources, I don't expect that to happen soon. As a fallback, you can put multiple references in a single footnote. While not desired in scientific articles, perhaps it would be acceptable in a non-scientific article. To see an example, check out this sandbox, and note that footnote 1, 5 and others have more than one citation.-- SPhilbrick T 13:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi!, Thank you for your work on the Could've Been You article. Can you take a look also for the Cher filmography? I intend to nominate this for FL... Kekkomereq4 (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for fixing the Ann Jillian article. My bad, mea culpa. Don't know what I was thinking about. Un abrazo, Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 00:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
...we may not always agree, but I certainly have no argument with you. And on Talk:Barack Obama, I think we agree about the content pretty closely. In case you care. Frank | talk 20:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I see that over at Talk:Barack Obama you said, "I'd point out that nobody's really discussing anything at Presidency lately. The entire talk page there is two sections, with only a single, unresponded-to comment in the past month."
Heh heh heh.
I used to post huge amounts of stuff over there, so your comment made me laugh.
Thanks for the belly laugh!
Have a great weekend, and please keep up the good editing!
Happy holidays too.
Take care.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand it either. See here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The archive was twice cut down over the break. First by Wikidemon, and then by Sceptre. In both cases, it was because the talk page had expanded to unreasonable levels due to the activities of one POV pusher (now topic banned) and multiple socks of Multiplyperfect. Increasing the archive time is fine, but was it really necessary to undo the bot? What vitally important threads were saved? -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Good post, and I tend to agree with the points you raised in general. The disappearance of two of the most vociferous and outlandish Falun Gong defenders has indeed turned the tide. It's not at all easy editing there - it remains just as challenging today to achieve the level of quality which I desire as it was two years ago, before any of them were banned. I do agree with you that there needs to be a counterbalance. However, the ambiance is stressful, and I have decided once again to drop the family of articles from my watchlist.
Anyway, the real reason for my post is to satisfy my curiosity: I wanted to ask you why are you sticking up for Happy, who is very doctrinaire and belligerent, instead of asdfg, who is a much more reasonable editor in almost every way? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I have had quite a long working relationship with asdfg, and while I find him occasionally tending to verbosity, he is usually prepared to listen. The change in the editing dynamic due to the presence of the other guy, on the other hand, is very obvious despite his general polite language. I agree that the sanctions meted out to asdfg could have been more nuanced, as the 'all or nothing' topic ban is a blunt instrument. I understand that new discretionary remedies have been made available, and I welcome them. It seems that asdfg has now filed for the topic ban to be lifted, and he has cited your comment above as one of the supporting arguments. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Stop removing my comments from the Obama talk page or I will have you blocked. JB50000 ( talk) 05:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Abrazame! You want to help me to create a Wikiproject releated with Cher for improve all her articles? I will wait your reply :) Kekkomereq4 ( talk) 07:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion of the manned space cancellation was done for several reasons. First of all, even though I am fascinated by America, I don't know a lot about American politics and couldn't begin to edit a political article. Second, introducing a list is an objective way to decide what to add. Once there is a list of 25 items, it may be clear that 6 of them should be included in the article. If just introduced as the events occur, it's difficult to be objective and to not give more weight to one thing but not another due to editors coming for a few days then leaving.
As far as your complaint of my post being a coatrack, I looked up the definition. Right now, that is not a problem. It may or may not be a problem later. Your comment of the Larry King show is either so brillant that normal people don't understand the humor or is, itself, a coat in a coatrack and should be removed. I don't understand the joke or if it is a joke, you may translate.
For the past few months, I always stop editing at the first of the month for a few days so that I will be refreshed each month. I see that I forgot about February so I will stop in a few minutes and return in 1-5 days. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just discovered from last year after looking at several conflicting edits in music articles that I had issue with then. This user 190fordhouse is a continuation of sock puppetry by this user User: 995Star. All those users I've shown are the same person as User: 190fordhouse and their own sock puppets. This person is not a first time offender of sock puppetry, but SECOND TIME. Glad your being very helpful, so I wanted to notify you of this. Carmaker1 ( talk) 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
What is "problematic" from a WP:BLP point of view about a question that Gaga was prepared to answer on national television for Barbara Walters? I've been around on Wikipedia for a long time, but have seldom come across this sort of opposition. The article is not a publicity piece for Gaga, and we are not in a position to second guess her wishes. I am very disappointed about what has happened here.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I generally agree with your viewpoint on the things, but they're still nice to receive occasionally. Thx. Fat&Happy ( talk) 07:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You reverted an edit of mine here a few days ago; I’ve opened a discussion here, if you’d care to join in. Swanny18 ( talk) 17:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
For your thoughtful, polite, and helpful comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-ha and their fans. That was the response I should have written. Nice! Glenfarclas ( talk) 04:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC) |
Hi Abrazame, I thought their should be a section in the Presidency of Barack Obama article about his governments policy towards NASA. There was nothing in the Science and Technology section but I decided to place the image there anyway just because it is an image that involves both Obama and science and technology. Also their are no other images in that section so it helps to break the text up a bit. If you don't think it is relevant then I understand. Originalwana ( talk) 11:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
BLP policy applies to living persons, so reference to it can be discounted straight-off. As the BLP policy explains itself; material "must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines." (bolding mine)
This is content on a talk page, guidelines and policy are therefore different from article pages. Policy here is chiefly to stop people adding libellous original research and opinions that have no credible source, wouldn't ever be permissible on the article, and are not about improving the article. However, as I see it, this is a genuine attempt to discuss sourced information that may be of value to the article. Additionally, you cannot libel a dead person. Whether the link actually backs up the what the editor is suggesting isn't the really point. No-one can discuss and accurately evaluate what is being suggested if a link to the source isn't permitted.
Anyway it appears that the issue you have with the newspaper article is not even what the IP editor is referencing. So your argument appears to be that you shouldn't link to material that sits alongside other material, that isn't permissible on Wikipedia. The fact that the link is actually broken and no longer leads to the article makes your objection doubly confusing. There is also little point in removing or oversighting a link to something that has already been published elsewhere and is not in anyway illegal.
So, in balance, I think removing the link is unproductive censorship and prevents constructive discussion. It also gives a mis-leading impression of the validity of the initial editor's contribution. So usual talk-page decorum should apply, you don't go back and change other's contributions, even if it contains errors, and particularly not when you are also disagreeing with what they are suggesting.
-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, just cause I'd want to know if someone referred to me.-- Asdfg 12345 05:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You took my edit off Obama and said to see talk. There is nothing there. Did you talk? If not, you should, because that is the correct way of doing things. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 23:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted it because it was irrelevant what his father was working on when out popped baby Andrew. Especially in the first sentence of the article. Maybe somewhere else, but not in the first sentence. :) — Mike Allen 08:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
MUCH thanks for that. Can you tell me what I did wrong? I simply copied and pasted the code from the Image reference page - but obviously something I did was not correct.
Thanks, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 23:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hiya! I tried that too on my second (or third?) revision... but I seem to have selected a page with a PNG... maybe that is where I messed up. Anyway, needless to say, I obviously need to spend some more time playing in the sandbox. :-)
Thanks again! RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Please be so good as to show me where I was canvassing support for my position that you accused me of here, Asking another editor to further comment on something that he was intregrally a part of does not in anyway constitute inappropriate canvassing. This is the second time you have made bad faith accusations against me on that page. The first was your referencing my and Rossrs' comments as tag team editing when in fact, the agreement or both commenting does not in any way violate what that page has to say. Asking him to comment too was not telling him what to say or what to support and I would suggest you read much into what was said that was not true. If you knew Rossrs as well as I do, you'd know that no one can tell him what to say. Saying "Perhaps you could too" was a request for him to comment, not how to comment. I object to the meaning you seem to have read into my post and your jumping to the conclusion that I did something wrong. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I actively work against you. That you didn't further respond was a fact, not fancy. The discussion was factually dropped. I also object to your scathing commentary on your view of me posted at Rossrs' talk page and failing in any way to address these same issues with me. I don't view you as an adversary, your position is simply something with which I disagree. There was no reason for your rather extensive summary of how you view me on that page. Please read Rossrs' reply to you about that. He summarizes it well. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I am informing you that I have filed a WP:SPI case which indirectly involves you here. DD2K ( talk) 22:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You know, I agree. The thing is that I researched news archives from 2000 and before the infobox had stated that the release date was November 14, 2000, but I remembered it being a hit on the radio well before Halloween during October 2000. A site stated August 22, 2000 as the release date and to me it initially didn't make sense, considering how I believed it was really late September of 2000, like the 29th or 30th. News articles first start printing information about his "new" single "She Bangs" around late-middle August 2000 and most of it stems from him shooting the music video around August 20, 2000. It probably didn't hit the radio until 1 month and a week later. Glad to know that my unsureness towards August 22, 2000 was justified. Thanks. Carmaker1 ( talk) 05:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Abrazame, I just wanted to congratulate you on your recent Talk:Barack Obama post about reverting the Presidential Styles edit. It was a very diplomatic and well-reasoned response, a nice example of WP:AGF and making newbies comfortable. CouldOughta ( talk) 02:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, We were just editing the same item at the same time (I Just) Died in Your Arms. The way you changed the dead link to a new link as a ref is cool. I was wondering how to handle it to, Just to touch base with you, I am working on Category:Wikipedia backlog and (I Just) Died in Your Arms just happend to be the first article on the list. Do you work on music ? are you working on dead links ? Just wondering I don't like to step on toes. Mlpearc MESSAGE 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You might not be aware that the word "fanny" is cruder in the UK than in the US... AnonMoos ( talk) 00:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I reverted to my changes regarding Robert Gates. He is the SECOND individual to serve as Secretary of Defense under two different presidents; Donald Rumsfeld was the first (Ford and Bush II). Anybody who knows recent American history will affirm this. So don't change it back and put erroneous info back up.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courthouseman ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I am about six months behind on the Help Desk archives, but I enjoy reading them.
Your topic on the Village Pump has been archived, but I was wondering where one might talk about over-referencing now.
I do this sometimes because it's simpler than having a footnote each time I go from one source to another. The article flows better if I just tkae what several different sources said and don't make a distinction between them. And sometimes two sources say basically the same thing but I can't separate the two because then some important information would be left unsourced, or it would appear to come from a source it doesn't. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard regarding the Talk:Barack Obama page. The thread is Talk:Barack Obama#Citizenship conspiracy theories.The discussion is about the topic of the recent Citizenship conspiracy theories discussion. Thank you. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 06:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
ya sory i do wrong thingi make mistake i sory —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewRiche ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
My apologize for not citing that womanizer was Britney's most successful single in the U.S, I will add a reference to that soon because honestly, I thought that all Britney fans would know that Womanizer is her most successful single in the U.S. So sorry for any mix up I will change it as soon a possible good day and good and happy citing-- UntouchableBritney ( talk) 02:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You've been quoted as an authority on using video as a reference on the talk pages of WP:CITEVIDEO and WP:VIDEOLINK, two policy proposals regarding the use of video on Wikipedia. Just FYI. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 13:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please cite a grammatical source for not capitalizing "senate" and titles like "majority leader" in the Robert Byrd article? Thanks. JTRH ( talk) 22:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The editor who dropped the number of threads to 5 also changed the archive template to {{ aan}} from {{ talkarchivenav}}. I reverted that part of the edit, but you reverted me when you reverted the 5 to 30. Since you didn't explain why, I assume I somehow got caught up in your reversion and reverted you. I thought I'd flag it up for you in case you did mean to do it. - Rrius ( talk) 02:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Just read your message. Do you have an email account? ElMeroEse ( talk) 05:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Good luck trying to get a fair use photographs. Wikipedia is going nuts and deleting anything and everything. Mug shots ARE public domain.I don't think the articles are better of without a photograph. -- Sheitan ( talk) 17:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Well-written and good at explaining the issues. Thanks! -- Habap ( talk) 19:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you added back in the succession boxes in the article for Without You (Badfinger song). While the general opinion in various discussions at WT:CHARTS is leaning against them, a true consensus has not been reached and it would be great if you can add to the discussion to give reasons why you prefer to have them for songs and albums that went to number one on any chart. Thanks. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 04:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not roll back someone's edits made in good faith. Your undoing of my question on the Barrack Obama talk page shows a lack of tolerance for other people who may not be familiar with US politicians. I asked a genuine question and did not expect to have someone such as you delete my query. I was not as you put it 'joking'. Article talk pages are not the private domain of anyone individual. Ozdaren ( talk) 14:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I corrected it. Thank you. ( talk) 68taileddragon 18:04, 2 December 2010 (EST)
Unless you can provide additional references, much of what you added was original research - particularly the "biggest gain in the chamber since 1946" part. -- Scjessey ( talk) 23:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the edit where you removed a mention of Biden's comment that Mubarak is not a dictator and should not step down. Several news organizations have covered this ( [1] [2] [3]), and they all appear to agree that Biden really did mean the excerpt you removed from the article. You claimed it "takes out of context and overstates diplomatic refusal to let an interviewer put words into his mouth", but this is the transcript of the interview, and it does not look to me as having a different meaning in broader context. Missionary ( talk) 03:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I was a bit slow typing this, I'm sorry. I was writing as soon as I reverted your edit. Missionary ( talk) 03:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for catching the edits from i.p. 66.87.0.192 . Did you undo them all? Ocaasi ( talk) 09:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks dude for pointing it out. please also write your opinion in the talk page : ) -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Your comments would be appreciated on this page that may be of interest to you.
I have talked Lear's Fool about it before. I honestly agree with you. I think the image is very graphic for most people. (My girlfriend freaked out when she saw it). I asked Lear's Fool if there was a way to do it so only users who choose to see it can. If you can do it, I would appreciate if did it or showed how to do it. PS: It's sad that we are going to miss you edits for few days but good luck on whatever you are doing during that time. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 12:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, saw your comment at the 2011 Egyptian protests talkpage, where can you see what Wikipedia articles are the largest? Answer here. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in WP:BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.
They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at
WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 21:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see where you explained your recent revert on Talk:Barack Obama. That information was recently added under consensus on that talk page. Have you read the discussion there? Also, "horseflies go without saying" isn't a good edit summary or explanation for the removal of information. I am not familiar with the phrase and I assume it means that controversy is inevitable. Still, that doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the article or anyone's article.-- NortyNort (Holla) 10:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Check out the ITN section :D. The discussion is still ongoing so you can give your opinion if you want. The article needs some update and editing. I would it myself but my boss is up my ass at the moment and I am going to be busy for awhile so if you can help it would be great. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 10:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I must say that your (two) lengthy contribution to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#MF-bomb on Main Page.3F was well said, on target, erudite and entertaining. Well done, Sir .... or Madam as it were. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Tvoz/ talk 07:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I've hatted your comment as it wanders rather off topic from talking about same sex marriages in Brazil, there is some legitimate points in there that are directly related to the topic, so if you wish to refactor your comment to only include comments which directly relate to same sex marriages in Brazil feel free to do so. If you wish to make a more general point about the legalisation of same sex marriage on ITN, probably WT:ITN is the better venue. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 09:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Since you provided feedback at Talk:Grammy_Award#Grammy_Award_for_Song_of_the_Year, you may have an opinion at Talk:The_Beatles#Template_removal.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:The_Beatles#Template_removal.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey dude, its been a long time. Hope you did well on your exams. I need your help. I want someone other than me to start an article about "Hamzah Ali Al khateeb". Here is some of the info I could gather about the subject:
Hamzah Ali Alkhateeb ( Arabic: حمزة الخطيب) was 13 yrs old boy who went with his family from Aljeezah in the march to break the siege in Deraa, he was among the unlucky hundreds detained during the massacre of Seda in front of the army barrier. Hamzah's dead body was later handed over to his family with clear traces of torture, bruises all over his body, bullets have penetrated his corp, and even more... his gentile was cut and then he was killed. Hamzah is only one of the thousands of victims of the murderous regime of Alassad. The story of Hamza is unfortunately one of many. There are many men, women, children, elderly who have yet to be returned to their families. One cannot fathom the amount of torture inflicted upon these unarmed civilians by the hateful and barbaric Syrian regime.
I would write about it myself but I dont I can do it with a NPOV. Im too angry to do it so Im asking you to because I trust you and think you will be able to keep a NPOV on the topic. I'll let you know if I find more info about him. Thanks for your help and support -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 00:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It's nothing but sad news all around us, I think Im getting kinda of depressed to honest with you. I wake up everyday know expecting some horrible news about someone horrible death. I try to keep myself sane by picturing a better future for humanity but I think Im loosing my faith in mankind. Sometimes I pray to a god I dont believe in to make the day pass without some poor soul suffering a horrible death. I hope I didnt bring you down with me :) -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 05:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Please note that the section header is just a short cut link from the ToC, not a proposal for the content of the blurb. It should be no longer than necessary to alert editors to the existence of the discussion. If it is lengthy, especially since the introduction of posted/ready/pulled notifications, the ToC interferes with the template display. (no idea how is was POV to call it a reduction, but that's not the point here) Kevin McE ( talk) 11:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Before we actually start edit warring over this, we should use the talk page. Edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion, and are an ineffective means for carrying out debates over article content since they require reverting to make our points. Thanks. -- Anentiresleeve ( talk) 21:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi t | c 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Listen, I need your help. We need to write about the arrests revolutionaries by the Egyptian military. I have started it but I need all the help that I can get. I think the overall number is around 7,000 whom have faced military trails! let me know if you can help :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 07:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reasoned comments in this discussion. Alas, the article itself has become a media circus. Liberal Classic ( talk) 17:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I hit enter before finishing my edit summary restoring the sources you removed from the Anthony Weiner article lead - so I did not explain why I re-added the sources. It is a controversial matter, and should have sources, allowed under WP LEAD. Also, having the sources removed will just result in someone removing the simple statements as unsourced. Finally, I am wondering why you believe it is insignificant and not lead material that he says he will not resign? --Regards-- KeptSouth ( talk) 12:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
You say the police have said the visit was harmless. Obviously it wouldn't have happened except for the larger scandal. Can you point to some sort of ref saying he has been exonerated or nothing was found? I haven't heard any such thing, although the press doesn't always print such negative results. Noting such an exoneration would be part of a comprehensive entry. Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 21:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Please take this as a 3RR revert warning, thanks Off2riorob ( talk) 22:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, you're being talked about at WP:ANI, and your input would be useful. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Abrazame, please don't make deletions to the article and THEN invite discussion on the discussion page...that's not how it's supposed to work. Consensus first, edits later. Thanks - -- WriterIN ( talk) 05:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could give you opinion on the picture nomination to be a featured picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 08:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey dude, how are you? Glad to see you back. I managed to update and expand Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and Human rights in Egypt under the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces among other thing that I have been working on. I still need some help tho with both article. If you can help, then I think we need to start with Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Supreme Council of the Armed Forces seeing how its gonna be in ITN. Let me know if you are in. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 23:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could give you opinion on the picture nomination to be a featured picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 15:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc ( talk) 00:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Excellent work, thanks. I especially appreciated the reference to my SS interview. Dave Golland ( talk) 20:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey, you should take a look on Cher's article at the Wikipedia in portuguese. It's well ilustrated, very well written, complete and have a big number of references. It's also a featured article. You may translate it to english. Lordelliott ( talk) 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher
Hi. The article ' Solitaire (Laura Branigan song)' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?
Dead:
http://infodisc.siteinternet.com/SongMp.php?debut=11100
This link is marked with {{ Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!
PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{
Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}}
to your user page or user talk page.
BlevintronBot (
talk) 23:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Abrazame,
Thank you for contacting me on this issue! The reason I removed the word "worldwide" from the title of the List of best-selling singles article is because no singles are produced outside of the world; to say that this is the list of best-selling singles and not to specify "in the United States" or "in Japan", for example, is to write an all-encompassing list of best-selling singles. Think about List of sovereign states. We could rename that article "List of sovereign states worldwide", but to do so would be redundant because, when there is no specification, the article is all-encompassing. We could tack the word "worldwide" onto the end of many article titles, but we don't because the things listed on those articles don't exist outside the world. If, for example, there were colonies of people living on other planets and they had best-selling singles as well, then it would make sense for us to have an article called "List of best-selling singles worldwide" because the word "worldwide" would make the article's scope more specific, but as singles are only sold in the world, to add the word "worldwide" is not to make the article's scope any more specific. Please let me know if I haven't explained my understanding of the situation sufficiently clearly or if you would like to discuss this topic further.
On a separate note, your talk page is becoming considerably long, so you may want to consider archiving it. Archival is useful for other users who are trying to access your talk page but have slow computers that can't load really long pages. Detailed instructions about how to archive talk pages are located here.
Neelix ( talk) 17:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Abrazame! It's been ages, I know. I just had a fascinating talk with a researcher named Heather Ford about what it was like to edit the 2011 Egyptian Revolution article during the heat of the protests and overthrow of Mubarak. She's very interested in hearing from other editors who were heavily involved in writing and discussing that page. I don't know if you've read her report Wikipedia Sources: Managing sources in rapidly evolving global news articles on the English Wikipedia but it mentions you and Lihaas and Silverseren and Egyptian Liberal, and goes into some detail about the debates and decisions we made. I think you'd really enjoy talking to her. If you're interested, she'd love you to contact her at your convenience at hfordsa@gmail.com. Hope you're doing well! Ocaasi t | c 20:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Branigan sol12.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 09:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:LB "I Found Someone" 7" picture cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article Mama (Umberto Tozzi and Laura Branigan song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable track not released as a single by either artist. No actual content appears to have been added since the article's creation in 2006; a quick BEFORE search doesn't give any notable publications about song.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
AngyFireFox (
talk) 04:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)