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! Karmafist18:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Abrazame13:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Drn - red titles.gif)
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)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Branigan sol12.jpg
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.
I had included a rationale in the File Summary, but apparently only computers decide these things. All the more reason the issue of something as simple as an album cover should be a simple, all-purpose template and the bots called off their scent. Don't you remember reading encyclopedias and textbooks when you were a kid? Ideally every page features a photograph, diagram or other image of the subject; studies show that both initial understanding and memory recall are greatly aided when visual elements accompany text or speech. Given the visual nature of the internet, pages without images are old-fashioned, dull throwbacks to the internet's early days, or the days when color printing was too expensive and so not in common practice in newspapers and books. So often substandard info appears throughout the web accompanied by splashy photos; it is a public service to associate the accurate info at Wiki with a similar image(s). Abrazame (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a-ha
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks! Actually, I already have done some editing to the main a-ha article, you can review my work by clicking the "history" tab and selecting my edit on the right and the previous version below it on the left and clicking "Compare selected versions" (sorry if you already know that, I know you're new and while much is self-evident, I know it took me awhile to figure out certain things, and there are still things I'm just discovering). I've got to go now, but tomorrow I'll give the debut album page a look. If you have anything in particular you'd like some help with or some input on, feel free to continue this conversation here or, once you've alerted me, on the talk page of the article in question, otherwise I'll give it a general clean-up as I did with the main a-ha article, and we can discuss any major changes. Great to have you as an interested and knowledgeable editor involved in the a-ha pages! Talk soon. Abrazame (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 ?
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)[reply]
Cashbox singles charts
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)[reply]
Cher disco
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)[reply]
I'm quite surprised you would say that. You have been waging your own struggle to wrestle the a-ha discography away from fans who persist in adding outrageously inflated, fan-page-sourced sales numbers. You have previously been banned from Wikipedia due to sockpuppetry, as you have been editing the a-ha discography and other pages using more than one account and then using several accounts to vote on your work there. Your single-minded obsession with trying to get the a-ha numbers under control (which I applaud in its objective, if not in its methods) caused you to attack one well-meaning interested party on his talk page, calling him a jackass and using profanity. Why would you make such a major attempt at getting the numbers within reason at a-ha (and keeping them there) and then object to me weighing in on the Cher discography, pointing out the disclaimer and source of a website that was cited for those figures? I'm not clear on the point in your last sentence...you are saying you're aware that most Wiki discography sales numbers are made up, yet you think we should allow such fan-fabricated numbers in discographies in this encyclopedia anyway?
If most of my comment strikes you as vandalism, perhaps you would educate me on which parts you're referring to and why? Abrazame (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you see, you didn't answer my question, or give any reasons to support your accusation. You apparently don't see that I was supporting much of your work at a-ha. I know you deleted the a-ha sales numbers (the last batch following your first comment here), that's part of what I refer to in my post above. I don't see why you aren't supporting my point at Cher, since it's pretty much the same as your point at a-ha. Abrazame (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying your idea is bad but i said you should delete those sales figures. If the certifications was wrong/vandalised its the same with the sales numbers. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Multi-Platinum
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)[reply]
Richard Marx template
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)[reply]
List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK)
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)[reply]
What you've put looks great and I will not change it - you've got the essence of what I was trying to explain in the article and the reference clarifies these points. Thanks. 03md (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily I was smart enough not to leap off the balcony in real life, so there was no hospitalization. I did frighten a few other patrons by screaming JANET! at the top of my lungs when she came on stage though. :) The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)05:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Your Personal Attacks at "Photo Agenda" section of Obama Discussion. Thin Ice.
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[reply]
Laura Branigan
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)[reply]
I appreciate your saying so! Yeah, I don't think what he brings to Wikipedia can be contained in the term "editor". I think I'd call him a found-object abstract expressionist with some tendencies toward an ironic Rayonism, the way he develops negative images by projecting carefully selected snippets and adding sharp, striking jabs of yellow with bold red tops over all that ominous black background. Barbarians, we, to expect verisimilitude from such a soul.
Checked out your namesake's bio and coveted his loose-weave linen shirt! Some great shots on his site. Ah, to be in Paris in the spring! Abrazame (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shaa-wing! Not! Who let the dogs out!
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Rossrs, though I don't recall precisely where, I recognize your name from other edits I have come across which I have appreciated and respected. That comment was not fundamentally directed at you. Have you checked the edit summary for that article? Red Pencil somethingorother had put in a few snarky and/or downright insipid edits prior to yours. It was his edit that changed the generic attribution that Arthur was a gay icon to the specific attribution that Rotters had dubbed her thus, last Wednesday or so. In other words, Red Pencil presumably knew Rotters was not particularly notable, and instead of behaving like an editor, he specified this fairly non-notable person in Arthur's article.
When I wrote "...query things with Red Pencil", I didn't mean you should ask that editor, I meant that that editor should behave more like a real editor and wield that pencil more thoughtfully. Red Pencil (or pen) is in these edits acting like a snarky middle-school teacher, simply slashing and lashing coldly about with that pencil. The bit about the pay grade refers to the real-world publishing echelons in that if someone marking a manuscript is low on the rungs, they're not entitled to make an ultimate decision themselves, and so they merely query it (place a cite tag) so someone with more responsibility can determine whether to check it or change it; when an editor is an executive type, they may mark it so a lower assistant can do the fact-checking and get back to them. My point was, here on Wikipedia, ideally we are egalitarian, and neither too feeble nor too lofty to take the time and effort to make an edit that enriches the article, as opposed to simply striking things out. Real editors aren't trolling articles to put big red "C"s and "X"s all over things; if we find an obvious error, we make a correction. If we doubt a fact, why, we're sitting at a computer and can do a quick scan of a ref or make a quick Google search almost as quickly as we can do what Red Pencil did.
If Red Pencil had made that quick scan of the ref, he would have discovered that it wasn't Rotters that dubbed Arthur a gay icon in his article, Rotters was referring to an interview Arthur had done with Out Magazine which referred to her as such. Of course, if you had made the same quick scan, you might have discovered that crucial point too. I think the onus was more on Red Pencil, given that the statement had simply declared she was a gay icon, and it was Red who put Rotters' name in there. You then came along and thought, "who the hell is Rotters to be quoted in an article?" Which is somewhat understandable, but then, that's precisely why I take issue with Red's choice.
Still, the ref was there, and the ref ought to have been enough, Rotters citing Out Magazine. I did not add the gay icon bit to the article, but while we're on the subject, the "entire (whatever) community" doesn't have to agree on something to make it so. It only takes a small segment of the American community to vote for a president, and once he (or she) is elected, not everybody falls in line, yet at the end of the day that one person is the president. It only takes a segment of the gay community to decide someone is an icon of theirs, and each segment can have more than one at a time. It's more like the House of Representatives. (And most people can't even name their Congressperson, much less vote for them.) The Rotters of the world, particularly when they are citing more notable sources, do then speak for that segment.
I didn't mean to dismiss sincerity and humanity. I do hope you check edit summaries to determine which editors are slapping tags and which are trying to respond to them. (I would direct you to Red Pencil's 4/29 skirmish over whether the Broadway marquee-dimming could be said to have actually happened.) As far as I'm concerned, an article can and should include a little sincerity and humanity, even if it's ultimately not wholly notable or substantive, in the period after a person's death. I had no problem with those statements remaining in the article temporarily, and realized they would be edited down or removed, but I saw no reason not to leave them in for a respectful period of time. Again, it was Red Pen of Doom that thought Betty White should put a sock in it, not me. I'd be quite happy if you, I, or some other editor could find a way to put some sincerity and humanity back in the article that is worth fighting against bloodless red lines. I recall hearing Arthur's fellow Tony winner for Mame, Angela Lansbury, making a statement to the effect that a certain era of Broadway seemed to have passed along with Arthur. I'd say that with Lansbury, Elaine Stritch and Julie Andrews still kicking, that's not at all so, but perhaps there is a warmer yet still substantive, notable quote we could find? Again, it was the "memorial" cite tag I was responding to with my comment about "sadness", not a personal reaction to the quotes.
Finally, respectfully, one point I would take issue with you over is that if something isn't appropriate for the lead (but may be appropriate for somewhere further down in the article), it seems the responsible thing to do is not to delete it entirely, but to reposition it in a more appropriate section or, if a quick scan of the article can't determine one, cutting and pasting it to the talk page and requesting that someone more interested and involved in the article do so. While a glance at a few recent edits can be helpful to prevent misunderstandings like yours here, it shouldn't be a requisite to discover any potentially relevant bits of an article which are swirling into the past and detectable only there. Abrazame (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thank you for the very thoughtful reply. I read it earlier but didn't have time to respond, and thank you also for the heads-up on my talk page. No hard feelings on my part either, by the way. I don't disagree with anything you've said, and I'm pleased that the air has been cleared. I'm glad it was a misunderstanding, rather than a genuine disagreement. After reading your comments, I think it's fair to say that you and I may approach things from a different angle, but ultimately our attitudes are similar. I think there is a time and place for adding "cite needed" tags etc, and they serve a purpose, but I think there are some editors that make a career of it, and I find that process counterproductive. The aim should be to build and repair, not demolish and corrupt. I've been thinking about it today, and I must confess that I was irritated to see the gay icon comment made in the lead section, not because I disagreeed with it - she's one of the more logical "candidates" - but by the haphazard way it was slapped on, which has unfortunately been the case with a lot of articles. (I have an issue with the word "icon" alone, although if given context as "gay icon", I understand and accept that. That's another story though) If I'd been less irritated by it, I may well have spent some more time on it, because I don't usually go about deleting things without a purpose.
That brings me to your final point, and I welcome your taking issue with it, because it's given me an opportunity to think about why I do the things I do. I agree that the responsible thing is to fix it, within reason, but that to remove it, is not necessarily irresponsible. I do remove things if I think they should be removed, fix them or improve them if I think I know what's needed, and question or comment on the talk pages if I feel it necessary. It's a matter of judgement on a case-by-case issue. In this particular case, I took exception to Josh Rotters, so I mentally removed him, and was left with a basic comment "Bea Arthur is a gay icon". True enough, but in that form it was meaningless and without context and the site that it was linked to didn't give anything to make it less so. So now, I saw a meaningless unsupported statement, slapped carelessly into the lead section where it did not belong and where it was not explained further in the article. It also occurred to me that before that was added, the article was satisfactory (although like most articles not polished or complete) so that removing it was more or less restoring it to its previously acceptable standard. By the time I'd done it, the article was no better or worse than it had been before, although in my opinion it was better to have no information than to have the information poorly and inadequately given. As I said, it's a question of individual judgement and choice, but I understand what you mean, and agree. On reflection, I realize that if I'd left a note on the talk page, it would have been more constructive.
As for the tribute comments : it's possible that more time should pass before someone gives an accurate assessment of Bea Arthur, that is not rooted in sentiment and emotion. At the moment friends and colleagues are paying tribute and expressing their sorrow. All of which is valid, and for the time being we should pick the best and the most relevant, if we are to include any. It may be that somewhere in the future, someone of consequence will be asked a question about great comedic timing or stage presence or ... whatever.... and reply with something like ... "Well, there was Bea Arthur. She was........ " Rossrs (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Glad to help. Yes, I've noticed that at some hours of the day/night, admin attention is a little slow on that page. It will probably be dealt with soon enough in the Grand Scheme of Things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Watergate
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)[reply]
thanks for the inputs
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)[reply]
Sandbox II
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)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, you're absolutely correct. I was able to fix it with a simple change of the placement of the word "which", and replacing the word "bill" with the word "act". The bill, once it was voted for and passed, became an act. The act and (most importantly) the spending is ongoing. To tense, that goes to my point that the spending has not already happened, but is ongoing, and in fact will be ongoing for a period of time longer than Obama's first term; it has really only just begin from a percentage standpoint. To look at it in another way, we could justifiably write about it in future tense, as most of the money will be spent in 2010, though even then it will not have ended.
In writing this post, I've experimented at the Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox with changing the link to "economic stimulus package" in the first sentence, which used to be to the ARRA, and now links to a disambiguation page for Stimulus that includes Bush's 2008 stimulus and the 2009 European and Chinese stimulus plans as well as general discussions of the term in both its fiscal and physiological senses. Interestingly, "economic stimulus package" links to a small page suggesting only "Fiscal policy" and the ARRA, while "stimulus package" links to the disambig page inclusive of all the other stimulus packages (which I added there some time ago). Ordinarily disambig pages are considered inferior to a full article, but in this instance I think it's helpful to see it alongside context from the previous administration and the rest of the world, especially as there is no article called "Stimulus (economic)" or "stimulus bill", despite their appearances on the page (the first redirects to "Fiscal policy", the second to ARRA). I've unhidden the full title of the act and substituted it for the word "act" in the sentence in question. If you have any thoughts or better ideas on this, or a grammatically preferable way of indicating the ongoing and future spending which is the point of the act, I'm certainly open to discussion. Thanks, gotta run now but I'm rarely away for more than 24 hours! As I said, I would like to work on the auto paragraph and the sections below it, but if you wanted to add the stuff we agree on, then move forward with the rest later in the week, that would be fine by me. Abrazame (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I spelled out ARRA in the first sentence, kept the link to the other stimulus packages and restored "act" (instead of "bill") to the later sentence. Abrazame (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well it's done. I found some time to look at it, and I think you're absolutely right, so I've nominated it for deletion. I don't think the article has any potential beyond sensation and scandal, and if he turns around and makes something of his life, that will be the time for an article to be written about him. While we're talking, I want to commend you for watching Farrah's article and keeping it free of nonsense. I also hope that her memory is well served, and I thank you for doing your best in that regard. One of the sadder aspects of her death was that she had to say goodbye to her son by phone. I can't imagine how painful that must have been for her. Rossrs (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the talk page, no, there's isn't anywhere for you to monitor. If the original editor removes the prod notice, it can still go to WP:AFD - an example of this is Melodiebabi which is currently listed on AFD and which was first tagged with prod (which was removed by the original editor). I have Redmond O'Neal watchlisted too. Rossrs (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says that anyone can remove the prod tag, so I guess it's OK for an anon to do it, although it doesn't actually demand good faith. It seems like a pretty flawed process if it can be done without discussion and without even disputing the statement of the editor who added the prod tag, but I can't find anything to say it's wrong. I have listed it now for deletion, so please make a comment there. I think it's pretty clear case. Another editor commented at Talk:Redmond O'Neal that we don't have an article on Joey Luft, although we have articles for both his parents, (and those of his siblings that have achieved independent notability). I think Redmond is a similar case, and we have no articles for Patrick or Griffin, but obviously we do for Tatum because she has actually done something notable. I would hope that the two boys would need to do more than be arrested on a narcotics charge, to qualify for an article. We'll see what happens. It will stay on AFD for at least a week, so by the end of that time, it should have attracted some comment, and I also think that on a wider scale, Redmond will have slipped back into obscurity by then. Rossrs (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have checked more carefully; Griffin O'Neal has a (terrible) article, and Patrick O'Neal (sportscaster) has one too. I think a redirect would work for Redmond, but to which parent? A redirect may even work for Griffin, but he's notable more for his involvement in a high profile death, than for his parents, although in his case, Ryan O'Neal is clearly the more notable parent. The place to question the removal of prod tags without explanation, has been asked at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#When removal is not contesting and the short answer seems to be that at the minimum, an edit summary is required. In any case, it's at AFD now, so I think it should run its course. I also agree that an anon who is knowledgeable enough to add categories is probably aware of a lot of things, but the prod tag as it appeared in the article did say it could be removed, so the anon may have been acting in good faith. Rossrs (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Farrah Fawcett
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)[reply]
List of best-selling singles worldwide
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)[reply]
Sotomayor nomination article
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)[reply]
I appreciate your saying so. I've done some clean-up on the Day 3 section and if I have time I hope to do some more in the next day or two. Best, Abrazame (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks again for your contributions. I had been hoping someone would help me in cleaning up the article. Gage (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those seven words
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)[reply]
Hi. I delinked it because, per WP:BTW, we should normally not be wikilinking things inside of quotes, and it's even dodgier to link something within a parenthetical note inside a quote such as in that particular case. That's the reason. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you didn't respond to my point about salience, shall I presume you have no objection to a copyedit changing the non-essential text? I'm thinking changing
She was about to offer her thoughts on this, but stopped, saying, "I don't know what you can say on your program, so I won't talk the way I normally talk." Implying her comments would be salty, she did add, though, "I don't like it...it rubs me the wrong way. And if I could say all those seven words [that George Carlin's famous routine suggests cannot be said on TV], that's what I'd be saying."
to
She was about to offer her thoughts on this, but stopped, saying, "I don't know what you can say on your program, so I won't talk the way I normally talk. I don't like it...it rubs me the wrong way. And if I could say all those seven words," referring to George Carlin's infamous Seven dirty words routine about profane language, "that's what I'd be saying."
This actually shortens the overall passage while being more specific. (I could have shortened that by saying it's more concise!) Both examples interrupt her quote to interject, but the second one does so with a direct reference rather than an editorial interpretation—and it does so without making the point of her comment parenthetical. Finally, Cher herself in the current version of that very quote is stating that she "normally talk(s)" with precisely that sort of blunt, raw language, so this isn't introducing an element into the article that is uncharacteristic of its subject outside of this context.
P.S. How do you feel about removing the "Senator" from "Hillary Clinton", as she is now Secretary of State, and there is neither a "Senator" nor a "President" in the mention of "Barack Obama" a few words later? Abrazame (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically, we know that she is probably referring to Carlin's seven dirty words, the real truth is that we're assigning her intent without any actual support, so I'm not even sure we should be interpreting her intention. I'm a bit concerned, now that I look more closely at the three paragraphs about this interview. I notice they aren't even sourced, so I'm wondering if the quotes are even accurate.
As for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, a point could be made that at the time she supported Clinton's bid for President, she was factually Senator Clinton and Obama was not elected. I think it's accurate either way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say "a point could be made that at the time she supported Clinton's bid for President, she was factually Senator Clinton and Obama was not elected," yet at the time Cher threw her support to Obama, he, too, was factually Senator Obama. Now neither is a Senator. Yet she is qualified as a Senator and his name stands alone with no qualifier. Either the sentence is being told from a the perspective of that time looking forward, in which case they would both be termed Senators, as they both were then, or it is being told from the perspective of this time looking backward, in which case neither would be termed Senator, as neither is now—or both of them would be termed "then-Senator". It seems a straightforward case of inconsistency of usage.
To the central point, I don't understand the "probably". Taking the quotes at face value, Cher is unquestionably making the point that she is holding back from using profanity. Yes? The passage in the article since May 2006 attributes her mention of "those seven words" to Carlin's routine. Yes? If you think it's an exceptional or dubious statement that Cher was nearly moved to profanity on the air by the presidency of George W. Bush, then perhaps you should research it or slap a cite tag. But I feel like I'm getting resistance from you on clarifying what the section professes as long as it's in the article, which perplexes me. If it's untrue that she said this, then I agree it should not be there. If it's true that she said this, then clearly "those seven words" aren't the names of dwarves, they're profanity—as the article already states. If she used the word "profanity" I wouldn't be suggesting we link to a list of curse words, as profanity is a common and presumably translatable word. However, "those seven words" is a bit more oblique, particularly for someone whose adolescence came after the 1970s, while at the same time a cultural touchstone, and calls out for an explanatory link to the relevant article. I'm not the person who added that bit, and I'm not trying to add to it, or expound away from the quote, I'm just trying to improve our presentation of that quote. There are two whole sections with cite ref tags a year and a half old. I'm not the type of person who goes around tagging or removing tagged material I don't find contradictory, extraordinary or dubious, but I do occasionally copy-edit similarly clumsy passages and link notable people, cultural references or in-jokes that may be obvious to you and I but not universally so. If you want to slap on a tag and give this bit the 19 months and counting the others have gotten, that's fine by me, but in the meantime I think it's incumbent upon us to clarify what the section purports to inform the reader about. As I've pointed out, my change will be less editorially interpretive and more direct and informative than what is currently there. Do you disagree with that assessment?
Am I reading something into your response that isn't there? (Or that is?) Because what is there doesn't seem to constitute an actual issue with the point of my edit, yet I'm sensing that if you weren't objecting, in a shifting manner, you'd have said "go for it" or suggested an even better fix if you perceived one. Again, even if it is eventually tagged, I don't see how improving the structure is objectionable. I have noticed some Wikipedians scrambling to prop up poorly sourced and non-notable slapdash recentist articles nominated for AfDs and thought, gee, they're wasting their time, it doesn't stand a chance. This has stood for 38 months. (Incidentally, after I wrote this, I thought, let me just research the damn thing, but I erroneously thought the quote was from a Larry King show, so I've been poring over transcripts of Cher on his program! And having a few good laughs. Noting my mistake, so far as I can tell, online archives for all but a few select Ed Schultz shows are by subscription only.) Abrazame (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine
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 AthensTalk02:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British females who reached number one on the Hot 100
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)[reply]
Indeed, it changed your view of her so drastically that the version you initially wrote in the article stated that she had admitted to this. Seconds later you reverted to say she denied it. What do you think you're doing, breaking news here? I advise you that before you edit, you need to read a few reliable sources (including Wiki policy on having those sources for exceptional statements just like this one) and understand the breadth and context of an issue to see if it's really fit for article inclusion. You also might note whether there is a talk page discussion about the very issue you're about to edit—as there amply has been, for weeks. Being bold doesn't mean you dive into an empty pool while others are shouting and waving at you. Nor does it mean throwing the article subject headfirst into that empty pool and asking questions later.
To your point, that reading an untrue rumor about a person can drastically change an impressionable person's view of someone, this is precisely why a reliable source, much less an encyclopedia, does not include something like this in a biography. It is a violation of Wikipedia policies including WP:BLP, in part precisely because such a lie could further alter public impression, and is the sort of thing that might harm the subject or even draw a lawsuit. This apparently has no basis in fact, and barring some dramatic revelation, it's not appropriate for article inclusion. To cover it simply as a rumor is to perpetuate that rumor and elevate that rumor to encyclopedic-grade information. This is not some decades-old, pervasive urban myth that has relevancy to someone's bio, and it is not Wikipedia's place to participate in making it so. Abrazame (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fan-generated content in Foreigner song articles
I'm beginning a process I've been wanting to do for some time, of presenting the entirety of a conversation that takes place across two or more talk pages in this one location for clarity and throughline. As this is not a priority, I will be doing this at my leisure going forward, first with new correspondence and then with selected conversations from previous dates. Immediately below, then, is my post from User talk:FuturePrimitive666, followed by the (indented) response from that user, which I have moved here from the middle of my talk page for chronology. As will be the case with any other efforts to this end, the only thing textually altered in any way would be the level of headings posted at other pages, and references to pages, in the interest of clarity here, and perhaps a wikilink to the page on which the other part of the conversation took place.
Welcome
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)[reply]
Hi! YOU left a comment on my page about "Foreigner", and a couple of their singles. Thanks, for at the least, making the comments in a friendly tone, compared to the user, "eo" from Boston. In any case, I don't feel that I should have to prove or legitimize any contributions that I make to the site, but again, since YOU asked nicely, here is one, at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foreigner_-_I%27ll_Get_Even_With_You_b-w_Blinded_By_Science_%281979%29_single_A-side_big.jpg . That is the actual picture of the "Foreigner" Maxi-single that I purchased in the U.S. back in 1980. Since, I am in China, at the moment, the picture was taken by my son, and is very small - typical Webcam exposure size. The single came in a plain, black placement (typical of American 12" singles of the period), and had only simple writing on the cover of the song titles and band name, using the typical "Foreigner" logo. Yes, the picture added to the site is an appropriate facsimile. And yes, I added the facsimile to add creedence to the fact that not everyone remembers, or is aware of this single. Similar circumstances apply to the Promo single of "Can't Wait" that I once had in my possession while working as a disc-jockey in Germany. Since I no longer have the single in my possession, and am also unable to find any other information online other then the singles serial number from Atlantic Records then I simply created a facsimile with a similar type photo that was on the original cover. The original bald man was in hand-cuffs, otherwise the same. And, I stated that in the information to the single that it is a fan's facsimile. Whether or not, Wikipedia chooses to use the facsimiles, is not of my concern. I simply added them, and added and corrected some of the information. Wiki is open to submission to anyone who has better knowledge or pictures to post them. Having personal contact with a former, prominent member of the band, I did receive permission to add the photos that I did. He personally thinks all of the "outrage" expressed by "eo" is totally uncalled for, because he sees this site as a good way to promote the band, and keep his and all past and present members names in the minds of the masses. So, as I said to "eo" in a much more polite tone than he ever replied to me, I simply am contributing my knowledge, and if the facts are not desired then we can allow no one, or someone who has no idea to do it continue to run things, as YOU all wish, because the constant repeated inquiries and squabbles over what is correct, and what is not defeats the entire purpose of the internet - to discover more knowledge. By the way, the site was banned for many years in China, because of its lack of neutrality regarding the Chinese. And yet, I am accused of lacking neutrality, for example, by writing that the song, "Long, Long Way From Home" has a mellotron played on it! lol Lastly, in comparison to what I read about other artists, such as, Peter Frampton, I think my English is entirely appropriate. Whoever did the editing for Mr. Frampton's pages was certainly lacking in English abilities, to say the least. Thank YOU, for taking the time to read this! Rick FuturePrimitive666 (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep working together to make wikipedia even better.
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 #1Second week at #1Third week at #1Fourth 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If you don't like somebody, and you bring that person's name up out of the blue in order to insult them, and then in a second post you use sexist or racist comments to elaborate on your dislike—as you did—and you do so because you think it adds to the harmlessness of your sense of humor, most people aren't going to be able to distinguish that from actual sexism or racism. That is, presuming good faith that you did think your two posts of sexist comments were harmless, and it never occurred to you that someone at the Barack Obama talk page might take offense to your insults. But my point isn't whether you know whether you're sexist or racist, but that you know that you are misusing the talk page of a BLP.
Given that the LP of the B wasn't even a Clinton, and that the subject of that thread had nothing whatsoever to do with being a Clinton, being a woman, being married, or being "henpecked", indeed given that the thread was rehashing a patently obvious point (the definition of African American) that only a troublemaker is going to pretend not to understand, it's rather more than just a bit of a stretch, it's abuse, and not just abuse of the Clintons. It's likely to lead other editors to see you as cruising for a conflict, even if you do not actually cause one. Once the previous editor called you on your insulting comment inappropriate to the BLP talk page (a concept you've been around here long enough to be familiar with), what purpose does it serve to return to that BLP to elaborate on that comment with remarks even more offensive?
I'm not sure I really want to know, but I'm intrigued by the affect you note it had on you: what children's TV program presented a joke about the president's marriage and what was the joke? Abrazame (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your Grundle Essay...
...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)[reply]
I just added a bit more info to the article. I love Janet! Its hard to believe how harshly people have treated her over a momentary flash of nudity when she spent the early part of her career singing about safe-sex and abstinence. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)07:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Hi Shane. Like Richard Marx, Bryan Adams is a songwriter as well as a singer; as such, they both focus on recording their own songs. On all of Bryan Adams' dozen and a half or so albums, there are only two songs he released which he did not write. Marx has nearly as many albums, but—until a 2008 album—had only released one song he didn't write.
User-generated content on the web has caused several popularly-held falsehoods. If you type "In Your Eyes" into a Google search window, the fifth most popular suggestion is "In Your Eyes" Ben Harper lyrics, as if Ben Harper wrote the song. The version people think is Ben Harper is actually Jeffrey Gaines, but the confusion is so rampant that his name doesn't come up in the top 10 suggestions. At least in that instance, the original artist, Peter Gabriel, is the #2 suggestion. But another popularly misattributed song is "(I Just) Died in Your Arms". Here the tenth most popular Google suggestion is "Journey", who never recorded the song, nor did any of the other '80s artists often cited by user-generated web content. Nowhere in the top 10 suggestions is the actual artist, Cutting Crew. Laura Branigan—who frequently did record covers—did not record "Holding Out For A Hero" (or "I Need A Hero"), that was Bonnie Tyler, and in turn Branigan's cover of "Forever Young" is often attributed to others, while others' versions are attributed to her.
Of course I didn't just rely on my personal knowledge, I did a Google search of the title and Adams' name, and the only sources for the connection are this sort of mistaken impression by casual listeners. Watching the beginnings of two YouTube videos they were amateurs lip-syncing to Marx's single. If Adams has covered the song, there's no record of it, in either sense of the word. Is it possible you're thinking of the Bonnie Tyler version? ;) She's got a raspy voice and covered a couple other Adams songs, including "Straight From The Heart". It's also possible you've heard a re-recording by Marx, say a live version?
Obviously if you find proof in a WP:Reliable Source (personally, I'd accept a YouTube video that's undoubtedly him actually singing the song), by all means put it in the article, and I'll be happy to admit I was wrong. It's impossible for me to prove a negative, but it shouldn't be that hard to prove a positive, if he actually did record it. Best, Abrazame (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obama pronunciation
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.
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.--SPhilbrickT13:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I do agree that 5 days is too short. People have different weekly cycles and it's only fair to let everyone participate unless the page is just unmanageable. 7 is about right, but I chose to take the incremental approach. In addition to the socks we had UnitAnode's expressions of frustration, and that new editor who's now on a 1-month block, both of whom generated a volume of text that astounds even me. I have a feeling with those two editors out of the picture for the moment we won't have a big length problem. Manually archiving and unarchiving is a little tricky. The main problem with undoing the archive bot is that you should then remove the unarchived stuff from the archive to avoid having the bot create duplicate threads when it archives them a second time. Better yet, there are few enough threads that if you really want to restore some you could pick and choose any meaningful ones that seem to promise further discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, the page was over 600KB for days, and at some points was even over 650KB. It was horrible. It's back down to a dull roar now at 110KB, which is still larger than many articles but certainly reasonable for moving back to 10d (already done) or even 14d. Frank | talk 02:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all three of you for your comments. Of course I agree that the editor to whom you refer had moved from someone with a conscience-driven, if POV, argument to someone essentially spamming the page long before he was temporarily blocked. To that point I think we need to re-hone our direction to neutrally and inoffensively focus on editorial issues fairly and with as much explanation as is reasonably necessary. From the offensive attacks, on the one hand, to the comments vaguely praising good points worthy of discussion, on the other, we're sending mixed signals that enable if not create the very sort of righteous persistence that we are trying to responsibly dissuade. Any good points worthy of discussion on the talk page for that article should be specifically identified for the purpose of driving the thread in that direction to the exclusion of editorially unacceptable points, separating any wheat there may be from the chaff. (Sometimes it's all chaff and obviously a ton of chaff makes it hard to focus on the one grain of wheat that may be lost somewhere within.)
To the archive bot, I had forgotten that undoing the bot edit does not fully undo the bot's action; thanks for pointing that out. I vaguely recall raising an issue, perhaps that was the one, with the guy who created it, whose response was that once having created it he had no further interest in refining his design.
To the vitally important thread saved, I will note that when I have time, it's my hope that the editorial issues underpinning the Newross/QueenofBattle edits would be seen for and decided upon what they are, rather than the issue being dismissed for superficial reasons. I am troubled that editors at that page, in both circumstances, seem to be refusing to accept the substantive editorial issue(s) that do or should allow or prevent an edit/edit suggestion in favor of—I'll say perceptions and preconceptions. Sometimes the person who won't let it go is the one in the wrong editorially, though it's reasonable why some would be annoyed it hasn't gone away yet and reasonable — to a point — how that one person needs a little time to see this. Other times the person who won't let it go is the one in the right editorially, and it's less reasonable that out of a phalanx of editors none of them is willing to see beyond their reaction to deal with the editorial issues. I haven't been involved at the article for a few days and a glance at it now finds it has been reinserted, but if that doesn't stand, perhaps that's best handled by starting a new thread, one that provides a concise summary of editorial points already established and can indicate to other editors that they need to approach this anew, with open minds attuned to the editorial issue at hand. Abrazame (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:HappyInGeneral
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)[reply]
Hi, thanks for writing. As I noted, I had come across HappyInGeneral in a Neutral Point of View noticeboard thread where a user was doing a bad job of accusing him of things and it seemed to me it was the other way around, that HIG was accurately representing refs and definitions and this other user was trying to discredit him to push a POV. When I stumbled across this new thread at the Administrator's noticeboard, I recalled HIG and his Falun Gong affiliation and reviewing some of the arguments there I was unconvinced that these were grounds for a six-month topic ban. I've seen people who hold pages hostage to their POV, with hundreds of posts in a couple of weeks' time, but the diffs provided in this instance simply did not equate with that behavior and, in my opinion, they did not add up to this kind of administrative action.
I can relate to what you say about editors who come across as deeply ideological and belligerent, yet my brief participation in the NPOV thread and my review of several diffs in this matter found him to be fairly balanced and actually polite and friendly. Perhaps his politeness and friendliness is sarcasm? (Perhaps your comment that the tide has turned is, too?)
To answer your question, I didn't stand up for asdfg simply because I had no prior association with that editor and only had the time to review one set of diffs and compose one comment last evening. As I stated, I haven't edited or monitored those pages and didn't review the dozens of talk page archives. If asdfg was so much more reasonable, why did that editor's review result in the exact same six-month topic ban, passed down the same day? Perhaps if the arbitration had allowed a longer comment period, your post here would have led me to review asdfg's diffs and support him as well. With only the HIG diffs provided there to go on, and your involved take on asdfg, it's hard not to sense that something of an injustice has happened in both cases. Although perhaps that admin. does like in the Olympics, and throws away the harshest and the most favorable comment and then decides based on the remainder!
Your comment here ("...the level of quality which I desire...") and your comment on asdfg's behalf in the arbitration suggests you are an asset to the article who is attuned to balance and fairness. I understand and support your need for a break but I hope this very complex and sensitive issue I don't know in any detail does not suffer in the absence of the three of you. And I lament that the project doesn't have a broader and more nuanced palette of ways to deal with these stressful issues.
What do you think about my comment that there should be something short of a total topic ban for certain editors? Do you think the ambience there might have been less stressful and the article would have been better served if there was a method of limiting a particularly problematic user's edits to, say, one article and three talk page edits per day in their problem topic area? I imagine it should be easy for someone technically inclined to make a bot for that. If, as was decided, a HappyInGeneral did deserve the total ban, perhaps an asdfg really only deserved what I am suggesting — or perhaps both would have found this option a better tool for learning to refine their editing behavior to concise, salient, important issues. Abrazame (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I started editing the articles a few years ago, before I knew much about FLG, I was generally supportive of them but could not see how the articles could have been so one-sided, and close to advertising. It was when I got stuck in that I realised there was a basic problem of belligerence with Falun Gong practitioners, and the fact that the high polarity means most other editors simply stay away (or get driven away) because of the infernal editing temperatures. I also found out the Falun Gong advocacy (as well as their 'genteel' comportment) was well documented in professional literature, and in fact highly visible in the streets of Hong Kong and elsewhere in the West. This is not the first time I dropped the FLG articles from my watchlist for my own sanity, and I think a permanent vacation from FLG articles is on the cards as I think I may have become oversensitive to the presence of these FLG editors. I caught myself out by neglecting to drop one article, only to find myself once again in pitch battle with another obvious FLG sympathiser there.
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)[reply]
I agree with Abrazame, it's a political rant and a BLP violation, and it doesn't belong on the page at all. If you see points that could be taken from the original rant, please feel free to bring those up in your own words. However, the rant has no place on the page. Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Talk page edit
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.
I liked your second version here best! ;) By the time you read this you will have noticed that I have posted at that talk page what I hope is a clear explanation, and of course I began to write that immediately after making the edit and posted it moments after your comment here. I want to repeat that I do assume good faith on your part, as I noted in the edit summary. In fact, I vaguely recall that there was some suggestion you made there some weeks or months ago and then removed...I seem to recall thinking part of that suggestion was a good idea I would support, though I can't recall what it was. It's refreshing to have someone new genuinely trying to contribute neutral material there with no axe to grind; even if many of your suggestions haven't been found relevant, I'm sure you will ultimately contribute something we can use if it's your wish to continue. I certainly welcome your participation. While it's possible you'll find something relevant to U.S. domestic policy, perhaps the difficulty you express as being someone looking at the U.S. from outside could be an asset to determining what foreign opinions of the U.S. and U.S. foreign policy issues, both as directly related to Obama, may be missed by navel-gazing Americans!
In fact, was the thing you mentioned about the nuclear missile base in Poland? I think that's a fair discussion to have, to see if we can make a relevant, sourced statement about what Obama's decision was there. If you bring that up again, I would be interested to explore it with you. Best wishes, Abrazame (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was cheering for Finland to win the bronze medal in women's hockey. Then they did it. So I challenged the men's hockey team to win the gold or I would, as punishment, not edit in 2 weeks. I should not have made the challenge (nothing would change anyway) because Finland just lost the gold medal and can only win bronze now. However, I do not lie and will stop editing for 2 weeks starting now. I've decided to cheat and if they win the bronze, I will shorten that period slightly. That's the last time I make such sweeping promises. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Well for our sake I hope Finland wins bronze! Personally, I haven't been watching the hockey (and why every time I turn it on are they still curling?! How much curling does it take?!) but primarily I've been rooting for Apollo Anton Ohno in the short track skating events. Disappointed to see him disqualified in the 500 just now (his hand was up defensively, not as a push), but he's still got the bizarre relay event coming up tonight. (Where pushing is an integral part!) Abrazame (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Andrew
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. :) —MikeAllen08:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image tag fix... (Andrew Koenig)
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.
Hi Robert, you're more than welcome. Though I hadn't really watched either Koenig's work, I found myself particularly moved by the early appeals and had been praying for him and the family; upon hearing the news on the 26th I worked to present a broader and more balanced sketch of the man at that page, as could be sourced, despite some pushback since. Knowing that someone would arrive and report the backward factoid that he had been arrested, I searched for the human story behind the civil disobedience and wrote the humanitarian section; I also added the material about Ellison's observations of him when he was a child (a longer version of the quote, since reduced by another editor), and expanded the career section.
I'm not an expert at uploading photos and have only done it a couple times, but it's my understanding that you were using a code for a general article photo, which requires manual addition of a caption. With the main article infobox, the photo automatically shares the default title of the infobox (the person's name), which appears whether there is a photo or not, and does not allow for a caption. This is why the code became visible. It's my understanding that, if there were to be any additional photo you may like to add in the future for use elsewhere in the article, you can copy and paste just as you did, and the text you add in the space in question would properly appear as its caption.
As a tip, the shortcut I took to make sure I knew how to fix the formatting was by opening the "edit this page" window of a different biography article that already had an infobox photo, and observing how the code appeared there. Abrazame (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. :-)
Hello, Abrazame. You have new messages at Rossrs's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
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)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, there and here. I've taken a step back in order to let the process play out, and not turn the page into some kind of flame war page. I'm confidant that a CU will turn up a veritable 'sock farm', but I've been wrong before. Keep up the good work, and thanks again. DD2K (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Presidential styles edit
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)[reply]
Thanks for you message. Sorry if I messed you up, Just so you know I just found Wikipedia:Dead links which I should of done before, so in the future I will make better edits. My aim is to help to shrink the backlog's, But at the same time replacing dead link with fact just moves the article to a new list. Anyway I'm going to study up before re-attacking, And again thanks for your input, If you come across any more of my "mess up's" please let me know. MlpearcMESSAGE01:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a second to find this message, I got your at my talk but was going "who's this, what's this. No problem my friend no offense meant or taken either,hope to bump into you again, Happy Editing MlpearcMESSAGE21:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for calling that to my attention. In the U.S. it's a child-friendly name that is not even remotely rude, but your comment here led me to discover it's a completely different term in British English, so I've reverted myself there, with the British-English qualifier so nobody else will make the same mistake. Best, Abrazame (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Robert Gates
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.
You're simply not correct about Rumsfeld being the first, and you're also failing to grasp the point regarding Gates, which is he is the first to serve as such for two different presidents of different parties, both points clarified in my previous edit and edit summary. As an IP also edited the section, I've explained the issue in detail at Talk:Robert Gates. Abrazame (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too many references
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You are now a Reviewer
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.
Thanks for your response. The word "senate" appeared with a lower-case "s" four times in the article. I've just corrected those. My apologies if I mistakenly pegged you as responsible for them. The edit history made it look like your work. I have no quarrel with beginning titles like "majority leader" with lower case letters, though I'm pretty sure convention says it's correct either way. JTRH (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Byrd archiving
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)[reply]
My apologies, it was an edit conflict that wasn't indicated as such after I clicked to save the page. I neither noticed nor intended to revert your edit; by all means, continue your work there in that regard. Abrazame (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ElMeroEse. No offense, but for editorial reasons, when I registered here I made the choice to conduct all my discussions of Wikipedia-related matters publicly on Wiki talk pages. I've never had any conversation with any Wikipedian other than that which appears in Wikipedia edit histories.
You're free to question or complain with me a little about the reaction of other Wiki editors to your previous attempt if you need to get it off your chest in order to move past it. If you don't understand them, or they don't understand you, that's usually more than half the problem, sometimes even all of the problem. I offer to help foster that understanding. (Focus on actions—which at Wikipedia amount to edits and comments—not on the people who made them.)
As I said, given that this other band Yndio seems WP:notable enough for a brief article at the English Wikipedia, I would be willing to help you avoid and understand the pitfalls as you construct an article, I will review it and explain any changes I might make when you're ready to publish it here, and I will help you defend against anyone here those aspects of it and your work on it that I understand to be compliant with good editorial and Wikipedia practices. Abrazame (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for allowing me to discuss my issues with Wikipedia. Months ago, I wanted to make a new article called Pocos Pero Locos, a Latin Hip Hop network that started a movement for Chicano Rap. No radio or television was willing to play Chicano Rap, all in due to political views, stereotypes, racism and other things pertaining to west coast gangsta rap. The network created by Khool-Aid was made to give rappers like Mr. Shadow, Lil' Rob, Knightowl, Frost, Baby Bash, South Park Mexican, Pitbull and others a home of their own. It is now syndicated across the United States: originally it started in California, then it spread to the southwest, and later it reached to the midwest like in Chicago, Illinois and the east coast states such as New York. Pocos Pero Locos is partially responsible for the Reggaeton movement, when artists like Don Omar, Tego Calderon and Zion y Lennox were emerging from their native countries to here in the United States. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's admins would not allow me to post the article because:
1. It is not well known in the U.S. yet
2. Chicano Rap is a niche genre
3. My findings and resources were considered biased, even though I provided evidence for their compilation albums
4. It's hated by everyone in the United States except for California and Japan
In order for Pocos Pero Locos to be on here, someone other than me will have to write it. I already made a slip up while requesting to change my username.ElMeroEse (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: In regards to Yndio, I only listed it because it's the song I remember the most in my youth. When I learned that it was really a Spanish cover of "Love Hurts," I thought it deserved an honorable mention. For fun, listen to the song "Vamos A La Playa" by Righeria, then compare it to "Don't You Want Me, Baby" by Human League. Don't you think the two songs sound similar, even if the lyrical content is original.
Mugshots
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)[reply]
The fact that mug shots are public domain doesn't mean that they're suitable for any and all uses, or interchangeable with any other photograph of the subject, and it certainly doesn't mean that they're appropriate as the lead and lone visual identifier of a human being in their encyclopedia biography.
I would agree with the general statement that most articles are better off with a photograph, and go so far as to opine that most articles that benefit from one photo are probably better served by a second or third, but I repeat, The primary photo for someone whose primary notability does not stem from an arrest should not be a mugshot from being booked for that arrest.Abrazame (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I wanted to provide you with some of the info you requested. Here is a link to summary of issues that I brought up when trying to come up with a compromise for succession boxes back in March: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 35#Proposal for use of succession boxes for #1 albums/singles. Below are a number of comments culled from the various discussions on similar and other problems people have with them:
"A labyrinth of every imaginable component chart and airplay chart"
"A succession box where neither the predecessor nor the successor has an article isn't a useful navigation tool"
"Succession boxes are not to present information. They are not to document the number of weeks on a chart. ... They are a navigational tool."
"Succession boxes [relating to music articles] are an indiscriminate collection of information as "Excessive listing of statistics" that is not notable to the subject"
"They are a "navigation tool" to other number one "Songs" and Albums that really have no connection with the page they are on."
"The information contained in the boxes is often unsourced (particularly the dates) and relies on other Wiki articles to determine what came before and after the article topic on the charts."
"People are posting incorrect dates concerning the time frame that a song is at #1 on Billboard's charts"
"We don't have to include the nav-boxes so people can find this information, since we have all these lists"
The main agrument I see to keep them? "Consensus hasn't been reached".
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)[reply]
You don't have to be familiar with a U.S. politician, merely with the English language and the concept of a biography, to realize that genuine questions you may have about a subject's ethnic heritage might be answered by reading the biography — in this case, the very first paragraph of the article body — and not by clicking to the discussion page to ask for a guided tour fact by fact. Indeed, having clicked on the discussion page, one is greeted by a FAQ section featuring five about the president's background, precisely so editors don't have to individually hand-hold every visitor who somehow misses that first paragraph and its wikilinks or otherwise fails to process American concepts of race or heritage, and commemorate each newfound understanding (or refusal thereof) in the 71-volumes-and-counting of archives. Given the bio, the plethora of linked articles and reliable sources, and the several FAQs, that article's talk page is not your domain to write "Is BO African American or is he Polynesian?" Abrazame (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any part of the world it's a good idea to check the word out in the dictionary, and perhaps read a bit more of the piece, before jumping to a conclusion. Either of those approaches would have disabused you of your "genuine" supposition that the article's subject might not be African American, as clearly and repeatedly asserted and reliably sourced throughout the bio, but Polynesian.
I don't know what it says in an Australian dictionary, but in American English, the conclusion you jumped to is a secondary definition. Our usage was a primary definition, "one born or reared in a particular place" or "belonging to a particular place by birth." The next time you read that someone is "a native New Yorker", you can now rest assured they are not Algonquin. And the next time you have a genuine question, take a crack at answering it for yourself before taking up editors' time, and space at a talk page that has 71 volumes of archives and counting. One thing you are right about is that article talk pages are not a private space, but it was you who erred in that regard. Abrazame (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Five Scoundrel Days Singles
I corrected it. Thank you. (talk) 68taileddragon 18:04, 2 December 2010 (EST)
You're correct about the 1946 part, which was a vestige from the previous editor's work and my mistake to leave in. However, I disagree with your characterization and your approach in reverting all details including the element which the source article led with; we should, of course, be discussing article edits in the thread already devoted to that section at that page, and that's what I meant by "discuss or amend"; my post at your talk was simply a collegial heads-up on the edit conflict. Abrazame (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Egypt protests and Joe Biden
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)[reply]
No response? I will take this as implied consent, and re-insert the comments Biden made, because I believe they're relevant to the situation (and per WP:BOLD), unless you object. Best regards, Missionary (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your messages here and for your restraint at the article pending consideration of the actual words, their context in the interview and in the realm of diplomatic speech, and where this fits into in the context of the aspects of the U.S. response that are really helpful to note in that brief section. I have responded in detail at the article's talk page. Abrazame (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I also reported him to AIV, since it just looked like a big mess. They haven't blocked yet, but then again, the i.p. hasn't returned either.
Frankly, no amount of subterfuge would surprise me. And I think the protests are in a very fragile state right now, because i don't believe that the attempts to disrupt them are quite over. It's good to see, however, the many public news reports directly spreading the idea that looting, crime, etc. are attempts to disturb the peace. I don't know if it's true or not, but it's almost brilliant, since it makes any threat to civil association an automatic externality, something that can be blamed on Mubarak and used to bolster the sense of self-determination and self-defense among the protesters. I'm almost sure that not all of the mischief going on is supported by Mubarak or the Central Security police, but the fact that a good deal of it may be will ultimately backfire: it will make the people fight that much harder for calm in situations that easily tend towards chaos.
I'm also glad we have so many knowledgeable people watching the article. I know a decent amount about Wikipedia, but my expertise in the area of Egypt is sadly lacking. So thank you as well. Ocaasi (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi, that information can be found at Special:LongPages. Click "250" next to "View" and you'll find that five days later the Egyptian article has only made it up to #194. I'd say that as long as we're honestly improving the two aspects of the article with an eye toward splitting in the near future, and working to scrub out redundancy, we don't have to worry until we've gone Top 20, up there above such unparalleled historic figures as Solomon Burke and Larry Norman and the List of The Andy Griffith Show episodes. Abrazame (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Obama revert
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)[reply]
Yes, it does. There is no horse in a natural environment without horseflies; they are not relevant to the horse's biography. If someone raises a valid criticism about a policy or approach, that may be reasonable to note in an article about the subject. If someone raises an invalid criticism, that is probably reasonable to note in their own biography. It is when those valid or invalid criticisms become so important, rise to a certain level of real-world effect on the subject of a biography or his actions, that it would be appropriate weight in a bio as brief an overview as is required at Wikipedia to note them, and then there should be some context to the criticism, as in indication as to which camp into which it falls (to pick an obvious historical example, accusations of witchcraft in Salem would require us to note not only that the accusations were false, but the various motivations that led the accusers to bear false witness, so that the uninformed reader will take away that it was the accuser and not the accused who was actually the offending party).
Not every valid criticism is going to be biographically relevant. Not everything the 24-hour news cycle and blogosphere whips up into a controversy for their viewership is actually a controversy, much less relevant. (Or, everything the 24-hour news cycle and blogosphere addresses is a controversy, which raises the bar on which if any make it into an encyclopedia.) When there is no good choice, or any choice would have resulted in criticism, that needs to be taken into account when we decide whether and how to present the context. Any bad guy allowed to go about his business as usual on the one side, his gangland execution on the other, and every effort of governments to prevent this in the first place or respond to it in the second in between. And since not every invalid criticism has reached the point in history where its proponents will allow consensus on its invalidity, editors need to work harder to achieve NPOV objectivity about the criticism. Which is to say that when there are a number of ways to skin a cat, and all have their negative aspects, we need to be responsible and put it into context if we're going to argue that the way chosen was a lousy one — particularly when two of the choices the criticism implied (Go right this second!) and (Ignore international and national law and consensus and defer to some future House debate!) would have been worse.
Obama, continuing Bush's preemptive unilateralism, jumps the gun and goes into Libya in advance of Europe, the Middle East and Africa getting on board, is a worse choice, and reasonable to briefly note criticism as to why, unless it becomes such a calamity that it becomes a defining issue, in which case we take a bit more time with the explanation. Obama, peacenik, digs in his heels and won't let Susan Rice vote to support the UN resolution (which would mean it does not pass) is a worse choice, and reasonable to briefly note criticism as to why, unless it becomes such a calamity that it becomes a defining issue, in which case we take a bit more time with the explanation. But Obama follows national (Senate resolution) and international (UN resolution, Arab league, etc.) consensus and leads its enforcement as anyone paying attention would have understood it would entail, and criticism is not biographical. If Gaddafi remains in power and lives to massacre another day, it's not Obama who would be criticized but the limits of the resolution and the absence of any further action. If Gaddafi's government crumbles and gives way to something less than we'd like there, well who doesn't have less than they'd like anywhere, so the criticism there, again, would be to what all the resolutions called for and what was done afterward. Meaning now (as ever in international relations) it becomes a question of how much of a role we play in our relationship with the country and the region going forward, and who in that region comes to power and by what means and to what end, which has nothing to do with this act or this criticism. Indeed, if Obama remains for another term, he may get to establish that relationship. If he is succeeded in 2012, then someone else does, and that chapter is their call, and the responsibility for it their biographical detail. At the moment, there is no criticism valid to the biography considering the international and bipartisan consensus in support of our leadership in enforcing that zone, all of which was implicit given our role as a superpower. Someone doesn't want to be the world's only superpower, just nap until China flexes its muscles. In the meantime, let's stay vigilant about what we're doing, inform the readership about the facts (more than the talk), and address criticism where and when it is appropriate. Abrazame (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clear response. Personally, I don't think the constitutionality of the action is valid criticism. The aftermath and plan of the intervention, especially in the continuing wake of Iraq and Afghanistan, is valid IMO. With U.S. Senators/Representatives voicing a lot of the complaints, it carries more weight than the pundits. I think the Libya section will inevitably evolve. Right now, I don't see a need for details on the controversy, just a mention of it; particularly how it relates to the U.S. I see that as being neutral, much of this is still being debated. It also provides due weight in the section as well. Obama's policy in the Arab world, during this watershed period, will be a major defining aspect of him and relevant. I don't think we will always get it right as editors but I don't think we are doing a bad job. I am just trying to stick to what is being reporting in the sources.
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)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I updated the bio and proofread the lead and the Mubarak section of the Trials article, and gave my opinion at ITN, but I think you're better off trying to source some of the statements that are tagged in the bio to get that more presentable (I suggested to interested parties at the ITN page that would be the way to go) because the Trials article needs a thorough proofreading. Sorry, I've got to run now. Good luck! Abrazame (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
And for what its worth the reason lesbian sex is legal in many countries and gay male sex is not is that those countries were part of the British empire and Queen Victoria refused to ban lesbian sex, whereas gay male sex was illegal in the British empire at the time. And generally worldwide there has been significant progress towards greater gay rights. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That page isn't there to discuss the topic, it's there to determine whether the topic is worthy of being featured at "In the News". When other people make general points that off-base in their arguments for or against a vote (those three I was responding to having had, you'd have to concede, little to do with same sex marriages in Brazil either, and being instead about general worthiness of the topic at this point in history), it is not inappropriate to respond to them.
And I'm sure it's worth precious little to the people in those few dozen countries who have been put in jail if not put to death on the basis of vestigial mores and laws from British colonial rule, but to the degree it is they're probably cursing the English for instilling such malingering Victorianism as a "modern", "civilized", Western excuse for their atavistic ostracism and bloodlust. I'd call them unevolved and Draconian, but of course Draco preceded Victoria by two and a half millennia at a time when some forms of gay relationship were de rigeur. Abrazame (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have a new message at Eraserhead1's talk page.
I know this is a redundant contact, but I am contacting directly you because you are among the six editors who has edited Wikipedia talk:Record charts more than once in the last two weeks. The following templates are at issue at The Beatles:
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)[reply]
Thanks, for replying so soon. I story has been been picked up by the LA times and AFP. If you google "hamza Khateeb" you will find reliable sources. I have tried to get in-touch with his father but the Syrian regime have arrested him. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I dont how good was your first "draft" was but what you wrote really helped me and Im thankful for it. Me and my activist friends have start a support group among ourselves to be able to deal with horrible news or set backs. I think it might me good for us. I was not gonna send the reply above because I thought that it was too sad and I honestly go through days when I feel like no matter what we do, shit will always be the same. Other days I think sky is the limit and that there's no stopping from our drams. It depends on the amount bad news per hour; too much and I feel hopeless; too little and I get hopeful. I also feel that I owe those who have fallen during the Arab spring something that I havent repaid yet. So for now, I am hopeful that we will see a better day. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
section headers on ITN/C
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)[reply]
Note
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Happened to me 3 times yesterday while editing the same page 3 times. Also broke my PC in anger. Anyways, Let know when you post it and thanks in advance :D -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see the Anthony Weiner's issue will effect his life at all. He didnt sleep with anyone and I think in time, it will go away but for now, we need an article to cover the major event. As for his wife, I would be shocked if she knew that he was a horny dog to begin with :S It's sad but its not like he has a kid, a homosexual (not there's anything wrong with being gay) or rapist. We live in a fucked world where if someone sends you a picture of their Wiener, ppl dont mind that much :D Honestly, that's doesnt even come close to being America's biggest problem at the moment. Once you are free, let me know as Im still waiting for the "Virginity Gate" section. I think the article is taking a shape now and hopefully we can live by Thursday :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The point of boiling the lead coverage down to incontrovertible material: A.) He admitted to sexting sexual pictures of himself to several women before and since his marriage; B.) House minority leader calls for an investigation; is that nobody at the article would have a leg to stand on with respect to either arguing it is excessive or POV, and anybody at the article who would tag or remove on the basis that it is not adequately supported by reliable sources would be a pedantic idiot and easily reverted — a responsible editor doesn't delete as unsourced a concise, NPOV, relevant and incontrovertible statement that is sourced in its own section in the article. That's the point of broad summary overview.
To the statement that he will not resign, it's both implicit and explicit 1.) By the fact that the lead sentence states that he is the representative, not that he was, so obviously he has not resigned; 2.) By the fact that we have not said he will resign, which would of course be relevant lead material were it to be his stated decision to do so in the future; 3.) And by the fact that the minority leader has called for the House to conduct an investigation.
The whole point of resignation is to avoid a congressional investigation and/or responding to the findings thereof, answering to one's colleagues about those findings, and facing whatever punishment, up to censure or expulsion, as they might recommend or require.
As he has committed no crime, and as his actions are not directly relevant to his service, the very question "will you resign" has a POV; the answer that he will not retains that implicit POV. So it is both redundant and pointy to include in the lead that he has stated he will not resign.
If there were to be an ethics investigation that found some evidence of violations, he might, like fellow NYC congressman Charlie Rangel, be subject to a fairly strong public rebuke, but survive this to be reelected with 80% of the vote. If there were to be an ethics investigation that found some evidence of crimes, he might, like Senator John Ensign, resign in order to prevent conceding or contesting the findings, or having those findings released to the public. That Ensign did resign makes it relevant that he long maintained that he would not resign. That Rangel was reelected makes it absurd to note that he said he would not resign.
Incidentally, note how irresponsibly we treat those articles: after two or three years each, the article for Ensign — who did ultimately resign — gives half a sentence in the lead and a section with only four sentences in the body, and doesn't note the vaguest clue as to what that was about or why he resigned; while Rangel's gives an overwhelmingly excessive amount of detail about each of various aspects. If you're not aware of the upshot of those investigations, the Senate Ethics investigation had subpoenaed Ensign to appear before them (he resigned the day before) and was set to expel him from the Senate. Rangel appeared before the House Ethics investigation, who censured Rangel on the floor, but found no grounds for expulsion. Some background, the Rangel article was greatly expanded in order to bear the weight of that huge section, which was at one point about 3/4 of the article. ( Just for a little perspective on the tactic of the partisan-left accusation one so often hears about Wikipedia.) Abrazame (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weiner scandal
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)[reply]
No, I meant to illustrate the heading that was actually being reverted to begin with, the more incendiary "Contact with...", not merely what that user copped to in "Communication with..." Abrazame (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, I get that, but it does appear as its own subsection. If that's all right, then fine, it just looked like it might be confusing. But I guess it also serves as a section break. *shrug* CycloneGU (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
As you seem to have only just arrived at Wikipedia eleven days ago for the sole purpose of editing the two articles related to this scandal, I'm happy to correct your mistaken impression about how Wikipedia is meant to work. Particularly in an article with WP:BLP considerations and WP:COATRACK concerns, we do not let everybody put anything into the article without consensus and then take our time seeing how many days it takes to get a discussion going to develop a consensus about taking it out, all while the violation or improper material remains in the article. What we do is remove violations or improper material immediately, with an explanatory edit summary and in some cases a talk page comment, and then we see whether or not a discussion about any argued justification to reinsert outweighs all justification to remove. The onus is on the person adding the material to argue for the addition of material found to be problematic.
To the edit in the scandal article, consensus was already established not to include any mention of a certain aspect that seems to have been disproved, even though some sources including us were still tainting the discussion and public opinion on the subject by blurring the details with coverage that did not match the source or other information available. Then someone added a tertiary comment about if this aspect were true, then a certain outcome should happen. But we already have an indication that this aspect is not true. So this was an effort to get around the consensus against inclusion and continue to perpetuate an outdated moment's status quo. If the innuendo is untrue, then some tertiary person's comment about if it were true is either a really stupid mistake or a purposeful attempt to re-inject this element into the article against consensus. Whichever the motivation on the part of whomever added this detail, the material does not belong in the article, I was right in removing it, and defense of either the material or some different editorial procedure on my part is particularly tone-deaf.
To the edits in the biography, no consensus had been established to add the material. It was excessive in length and detail and highly WP:POV in its presentation. One aspect was already covered elsewhere but the editor(s) arguing for inclusion apparently either didn't actually read the article to discover this, or else thought that it was so important it deserved not only that paragraph but its own subheaded section in addition. That was patently not the case. In good faith I added some of the additional detail from the new section into the earlier coverage, because it seemed to be a detail that actually gave a window into his on-the-job personality type that seemed relevant in a bio. The other aspect was a silly WP:NOTNEWS issue that was blown out of proportion and given an entirely one-sided presentation devoid of the context in the source. The fact is, they were either misunderstood by the editors who added and worked on them or they were purposely misrepresented to cast a completely negative and scandal-ridden pall over the biography, highly POV and WP:UNDUE. Several such tempest-in-teapot negative POV issues were added to the article the same day as the developing scandal, and in fact the two points you at long last argue for on the talk page were included in a "Controversies" section, which aside from the fact that such sections are frowned on, further illuminated the POV of the editors at work there. I gave an WP:EDIT SUMMARY for each edit, and then posted a numbered point-by-point commentary on the edits on the article's talk page for further clarity, creating a section called Fleshing out the bio.
It is particularly lazy or disingenuous, and perhaps both, for you to waste my time with your pointy and erroneous admonition at my talk page ten days after the article and talk page edit to which you refer (despite the fact that you have been involved at these pages during that time), on the very day that thread gets archived, without your or any editor's disagreement on my justifications for those edits.
Finally (I hope) on this point at my talk page, I was never in violation of WP:3RR, nor would I have been had I persisted in an additional revert or two, per WP:NOT3RR, which reads, "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." Rather than exercising that exemption, I took it to the BLP noticeboard and my position on those edits and the misimpression of your post here was upheld by the subsequent actions and posts of other editors. Abrazame (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ducking in momentarily I notice you're already on to a third poll. My take is too complex to give a simple thumbs-up or -down; I started writing down some of my thoughts but will have to get back to them later. If the poll is no longer open then I'll start my own section. Thanks for the heads-up. Abrazame (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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! Ocaasit | c20:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Branigan sol12.jpg
⚠
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).
Orphaned non-free image File:LB "I Found Someone" 7" picture cover.jpg
⚠
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).
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.
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.
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![02:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abrazame#c-B-bot-2015-10-11T02:41:00.000Z-Orphaned_non-free_image_File:LB_"I_Found_Someone"_7"_picture_cover.jpg){kind=link}