User talk:Kww/Archive05202009

Archive at User talk:Kww/04022009.

Beastly this Monday

I just got news that the cast and crew of Beastly are going to Montreal this Monday to start filming. So, when can I publish the Beastly page? Kikkokalabud (talk)


Sucker Punch update

I just updated my sandbox. Could you check if it's OK for publishing this October? Kikkokalabud (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bezaaum

sorry, I didn't know. Thanks for the warning!

mediatraffic

ok. can u tell me how to delite this article Best selling albums in 2009 i can't find how to do it. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokuna (talk • contribs) 08:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

i'm very tierd.... so u can delete my article Best selling albums in 2009sory if i make u a trouble. i did'nt wanted like this. i thought that i make a good job, but i was wrong. sory and goodby. i will never make nothing on wikipedia.(on my favorite site)

Simple Plan chart query

Anyway you can write what you want and concider whatever you regard important. But one can be said that I like wikipedia very much as I think that this is global net of informaitonal source where can be found any kind of data that can cover throught the world. There for I considered and still consider that this article and the web site were this article comes is reasonable to be in wikipedia as wikipedia covers all kind of information and there is no limit on information variaty.Meanwhile you are well aware that the article data is slightly/almost different from the real data that you have included in the same Album article. Thanks for your fixed idea for my article as it gives me more challenge to protect this article from deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokuna (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Plan chart query

Do you think you could take a look at this and see if it is an appropriate chart, or just chartspam, and act accordingly? I didn't bother to correct the spelling mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now User:Hometown Kid is getting into it with Simple Plan, claiming that there is a new single on the basis of [1]. Do you think you could look into it?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

I've started a thread on WT:FICT. As much as I have wanted to see this passed, if it's suddenly going to be substantially changed, then Ikip's argument that the RfC is invalidated by changed does mean something. (Sigh). Here we go again... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despues de Todo

I moved the tag back up again. The anonymous IP keeps putting it down south. What can one do? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with the diceyness on the surface. I went looking around using some journalistic sources , and came up pleasantly surprised. Rather than comment with "keep" and let someone else close it, I determined that it was worthy keeping. You're correct, I could have said "no consensus" (which I just did with another). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the topic of AfD's...I look at the Argentina-Singapore group AfD. Some of those should stay, others should be deleted. Obviously, I can't do a non-admin closure to take care of that ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Harassment

Filing an inflammatory and unjustified sock puppet report goes "way over the line" and may constitute harassment. A simple IP lookup (which takes less than one minute to perform) would have confirmed for you that I and the other user in question were not the same people. Instead, you chose to file a report (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildernessflyfisher.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)), wasting the valuable time of other members of the community. Since such a small amount of effort on your part would have clarified the issue, it is my belief that the sock puppet report in question was filed in order "to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." This clearly falls within the definition of harassment as defined by Wikipedia.[reply]

Furthermore, maintaining a stranglehold on the content of a certain Wikipedia page in which you have a vested interest is viewed as questionable behavior at best. Repeatedly reverting edits, rather than using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors is also a clear example of "Edit War" Tactics. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of foul play

Exerting near complete control over the content of a certain wiki topics in which you have a biased, vested interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NVC

You refuse to accept the consensus of many users contributing to articles for which would create a balanced view of a topic, of which you are no authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

Your tactics include reverting and undoing any change that is made, often in 2 minutes or less, repeatedly. As of today, your contributions to the topic "temple garments" includes 36 reverts/undos yet only 2 constructive contributions. Impressive history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EDITWAR

Accusing anyone who makes an edit of religious censorship. I've seen some good arguments on that page, but you just keep on undoing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAITH

You have a history of trying to keep people from editing "your" pages by posting warnings and threats on their talk pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HARASS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HUSH

The above behavior is unfortunate and should be noted for future reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.64.63 (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"3RR and Harrassment Warning"

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Temple garment. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

"You are very close to being blocked, so it would be best for you if you simply calmed down a bit..." -kww
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.64.63 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, I hope you don't mind if I step in to try to settle things down. I've invited our anonymous friend and Wildernessflyfisher to stop editing the article for a few days while they come to my talk page and discuss it. If they acquiesce, would you be willing to put on hold any further warnings or sanctions you might otherwise pursue against them? Giving them a bit of space might help them to discuss with less emotion and more reasoning, is what I'm thinking. Sound okay? alanyst /talk/ 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

diplomacy...

...is one of the things I admire in you. I wish I had your patience--and I wish I was on Bonaire right now! Groeten, Drmies (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My take on the recent dispute

You might be interested to peruse my take on the recent dispute at Temple garment. I welcome your feedback on the talk page. alanyst /talk/ 07:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Hello Control's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

your post Multiple final warnings is not true there have not been multiple final warnings and actually last I looked neither had there been any edits after the one and only final warning. Jeepday (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC):I see two final warnings, though one did not have the cute little red stop sign. [2] and here. Does one of them not count for some reason? If they both count, a retraction seems to be in order.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the fault is mine I was looking for the formatted final warning. See the response at my talk also. They have stopped vandalizing, so you have accomplished the goal even with my failure to read correctly. Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second final warning crossed. He added things to Aaliyah, I reverted, he was adding stuff to Cassie while I was warning, and then I took care of the Cassie problem, thinking it had happened after my warning. In fact, it occurred seconds before. What's with the youtube link, BTW, Wehwalt?—Kww(talk) 00:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I had a problem with the copy/paste. I'll change that. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, glad to see it was a misunderstanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, one final follow up, the user posted this, it has a references. So it would appear to be a good faith edit. You may (or may not) still need to work on WP:RS with them, good luck. Jeepday (talk)
RE: your post on my talk page - You will probably need to take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as there seems to be ongoing issues and the distinction of vandalism is not clear. Jeepday (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs

Hi, would you mind reading Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive51#Mug_shots and leaving feedback on my page about suggestions on how to advocate for policy change? Also, I'd like more input on Talk:Chris_Brown_(entertainer)#Suggesting_immediate_removal_of_arrest_from_the_article_for_BLP_concerns, Talk:Rihanna#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy, and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#conerns_over_recent_domestic_violence_reports_between__Chris_Brown_and_Rihanna if you are interested. Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

  • hi! soo thanks for your supportment against the katy perry singles chart's peak position vandalism - it's great to feel that i'm not alone in this war! :)) i hope one time they will gonna give up ;) --Triancula (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One less vs. one fewer

I'm not going to disagree for the point of disagreeing, but you might find interesting. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course - I have no idea why I edited just to change that! Must have been a nerve hit whilst under the influence of sleep deprivation ;) Sorry for bothering you. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 07:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dance-pop

Can you please speak to an administrator about User:Dance-pop and his or her reopening the closed article for "Beautiful, Dirty, Rich". The user continues to reopen it after a discussion months ago. He or she threatens to have me blocked. Charmed36 (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. But you have not looked at both sides of the story. Did you contact me about the contnet abuse in a non-threntnig.No you did not way. I have talked to Charmed36. He has also being making more then 3 reverts in less then 24 hrs. So I am sorry if you feel that I am in the wrong. The disscussion is not over, I have reopened it. You are now threntning me, so I will wrn you now. My edits are not threnting, maybe in your opinion. I have tryed to settle it, but chrmed will not listen. I hope you can help. I will reopen the disscussion for deletion on the talk page of the article. Thanks.Dance-pop (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wobbly bob + artist bio

Thank you for adding the bio to the deletion discussion. I had no idea you could do that. §FreeRangeFrog 22:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design addition

I left a note on User talk:R. fiend that I thought the placement of the new material is reasonable in close proximity to the subsection on "Religion and leading proponents". Perhaps someone else will propose merging the two subsections, though offhand I'm comfortable with it in its present placement. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FfD to delete Time cover image

Hi. As you were involved in some of the recent discussion and debate about the images in the article on Intelligent design, I thought you might like to know a separate proceeding was brought to remove the Time image by outright deletion from the wiki . It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg . If you are at all interested in the issue, it would be reasonable to post a "keep" or a "delete" at that page. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro Emotional Technique

I have taken your suggestions into consideration, and have come up with a more truncated version. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and let me know if the article is better served this way. I did however read through it many times, and saw numerous sections where I specifically mentioned "assumptions" and "hypothetical". In this latest version, I have tried underlining the word "Assumption" to make it more obvious. Is there a place where I can put this article up for reading before publishing? I would prefer not to have to publish it and then immediately have it taken down. Looking forward to your input. KBenSD (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Haha. I was just using it. Saw it a while ago and you've done a really brilliant job! Thanks! k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 15:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under Construction

Thanks! I had no idea you were "watching" what I was doing in my sandbox. I was going to pull a few of these quotes to reference something like "a widely respected/popular law professor" or some such thing.

This is going to be a great page. You'll see. Michael has a "chair" at his law school. He was on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. He's the #2 RICO lawyer in the country. He has written voluminously, notably one of the primary Evidence textbooks used in law schools today. He represented the IOC in the SLC Olympic Committee Scandal. A couple of years go he was diagnosed with ALS and he has spearheaded a movement to get major league baseball involved in a cure, leading to a major upcoming event on July 4th at ballparks around the country. I was surprised he didn't have a page up already.

I'm brand new to this. When you write me a "new message", I see I can get to it under "my talk". But is there a direct/private way I can respond?

Thanks, Rose P.S. Evolutionary biology rocks. It was called Sociobiology in my day, I believe. Huge fan. Changed my thinking.Samantha1961 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clueless

I saw no "e-mail this user" button. And my failure to communicate with your predecessor was entirely my fault. I'm a total novice just trying to do this one thing...Samantha1961 (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please review my page

Could you please review the page I've been working on and let me know what you think so far? Also, is it still unacceptable to use links like that blog as references for "well-regarded by students"? Thanks! Samantha1961 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"witness protection"

Already done! It's mentioned in one of the articles. Thanks for reading.Samantha1961 (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"citation needed"

The citation is #5 of the ones I have listed. If you're interested in looking, the article opens with the rumor and discusses it for several entertaining paragraphs. How do I add the citation?

Also, is this the right time? Or should I be looking at this later?

I not only have no idea how to add the citations into the main text, I have no idea when they are required. Why is it, for example, tha the rumor needs a citation but that his birthdate doesn't?Samantha1961 (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References... and Reviewing an Entry

I did know that from personal knowledge. But I knew enough not to put it in there until I saw it in the independent source. He was my law professor (and boss) over 25 years ago. Now he is my friend. It's funny that the rumor is STILL out there. I told him I would write this Wikipedia entry about/for him, but I do feel it is warranted.

On other fronts, another friend of mine already has an entry--a somewhat quesionable one. I wonder if you could review this? It is Jay Bybee, author (or at least signatory) of the infamous "Bybee memo". Jay is also someone I have known for nearly 30 years. He is sharp as a whip and extremely principled. Our politics differ, and I proudly oppose torture. (no-brainer there) Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. This entry is extremely stinging and one-sided. For example, the last reference given in the list at the bottom specifically states that the interviewee feels that Jay and the others involved acted in good faith, just like the interviewee (who takes the opposite stance) feels he himself did. No mention of this is made in the Wikipedia article, however, which is extremely one-sided.

Jay is being tried in the court of public opinion and obviously Wikipedia is just one corner of it, but I'd sure like to see this corner cleaned up. I'm prepared to go through his article cite by grueling cite if need be, but it seemed best to ask you to review it before I went in there after it. Just let me know how to proceed. Thank you!!

editor??

What exactly does that mean? Do you work for Wikipedia? Or are you a private individual like me? Much as I appreciate the help, if you are a private individual, why are you making changes in my sandbox? And if you are a Wikipedia person, please advise me on my Bybee question. Also, I hate you already because living on an island is my lifelong dream and here I am stuck at Disney World...

editor??

What exactly does that mean? Do you work for Wikipedia? Or are you a private individual like me? Much as I appreciate the help, if you are a private individual, why are you making changes in my sandbox? And if you are a Wikipedia person, please advise me on my Bybee question. Also, I hate you already because living on an island is my lifelong dream and here I am stuck at Disney World...

Beautiful, Dirty, Rich

Hey Kevin, the above articles deletion request has been closed citing no consensus. Can you tell me what to do with the article now? There are very few authenticable sources in it to warrant a separate page and nothing in the article complies WP:SONG. Shall we redirect it? --Legolas!! (talktome) 05:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A concern has been raised in the article's talk page to merge it with the album, as not enough material to warranty a separate page. Please share your thoughts on this. --Legolas!! (talktome) 09:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this username inappropriate?

I'm welcoming users right now, and I came across a username that's inappropriate (I welcomed him/her, but...) What do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hot_sperm_in_your_eyes&action=history - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

misc

How was the trip to the eye doctor?

I'm making a lot of progress on my JB edits--and learning a great deal.

I've dropped the MG piece while working on the Bybee piece. I'm learning so much on the JB piece that I figure I'll wait to write the MG piece so I can apply the newfound knowledge.Samantha1961 (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

misc 2

I'm starting to get used to this, but it still takes me forever to even remember how to write back. It took me 5 minutes just to find your msg! I was only looking because Wikipedia told me I had a msg. Notice I got my e-mail thing up.

I read over COI. Your concerns are noted. However, I do believe I can do justice to these topics. My MG piece is totally warranted, so that's fairly easy. And the JB piece was so slanted in the other direction--not just misuse of quotations but actually misstating what was in the original--that it requires balance and objectivity. I'm not THAT close to either of these men and I feel confident I can write in a neutral/balanced style. The JB piece demands that balance be added, anyway. And it'll be easy on the MG piece. Also, both are worthwhile subjects that should be "out there" on Wikipedia whether I get involved or not. I veritably rock at writing, so I think I can do this right.

BTW, an interesting point on the JB piece. He is totally absolutely conservative. I'm exactly the opposite. That ought to put some balance in the article right there. I don't want to see him slammed. But I probably disagree with the memo. I'm not sure. 50 pages of legalese to slog through... There's a reason I'm no longer a practicing attorney... Boring... That'll be my very last step. But knowing JB the way I do, I believe he acted in good faith when he wrote it. In fact, one of the references indicates that the very man who rescinded the memo also believes its authors were acting in good faith.

Sorry about the eye thing. It's one of my biggest fears. My young 'un has diabetes, so now I can fear for her as well... Sucks...Samantha1961 (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied.

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Eugene Krabs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ali Lohan

My mistake. Fixed. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a hint

If you don't like my version[3], give me a hint on what you think would work. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance

I just had an epiphany. There is also a Wikipedia entry entitled "Bybee Memo". Wouldn't the entire discussion of the Bybee Memo within the Jay Bybee piece be in a better location if I moved it over to the Bybee Memo entry and just left in a blue reference to it in the Jay Bybee piece?? What do you think?Samantha1961 (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fame Ball Tour

Do you think the Afd nomination of the above article is valid? The reason given for nomination is so very strange. Can you please share your thoughts at the discussion page? --Legolas!! (talktome) 11:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best selling albums in 2009

I'm not seeing United World Chart mentioned in the sources and from a cursory glance neither does the source. Could you please clarify the nomination as to how you believe the UWC is involved in the article. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Face

if u go down page you can see..(then the cd single) but you can also see here:http://italiancharts.com/archive.asp put 05/02/2009 scuse me for the english..but i'm italian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.53.251.208 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JB

I am now substantively done with the JB piece. If you'd like to tackle those references, feel free...Samantha1961 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Best selling albums in 2009

I red the discussion page but there I could not find reasonable argument against this article if we do not consider you and one (that might be your friend :). In previouse talks you mentioned that Brasil didn't/don't have an official chart but you can check it on the web site , hope you can find it helpful :).

  • Above all I want to add that I have a real argument that this web site uses the following coutries (THE TOP-SELLING ALBUMS ACCORDING TO GLOBAL SALES DATA AND NATIONAL ALBUM-CHARTS OFFICIAL NATIONAL CHARTS FROM USA, JAPAN, UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY, AND FRANCE WITH REAL SALES DATA) data as a key information source and as for chart information of other coutries it is a kind of secondary information.

Best selling albums in 2009

Why you take only desicion whether this article should exist on this web site or not? As about this was said above, I consider that you do not have enough and proper arguments to abolish this article, you can check the sale rate of these albums just here in wikipedia. I consider that it is not kind gesture always to argue about this article existence on this web site. With honor Koka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokuna (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the matter of affair is such and you urge to delete this article from this web site, I can say that you're welcome in only one case if this will be decided by the open discussion where all wikipedia members will express their opinion about this article. I agree that mediatraffic is not reliable in track data, but as for the Albums selling and editting information it is almost the same as RIAA, IFPI, BPI and other certified companies. Therefore your self argument is not enough for deleting this article because the Album sales information that is eddited by me can be simply checked by clicking on the article and see the difference between them.


Anyway you can write what you want and concider whatever you regard important. But one can be said that I like wikipedia very much as I think that this is global net of informaitonal source where can be found any kind of data that can cover throught the world. There for I considered and still consider that this article and the web site were this article comes is reasonable to be in wikipedia as wikipedia covers all kind of information and there is no limit on information variaty.Meanwhile you are well aware that the article data is slightly/almost different from the real data that you have included in the same Album article. Thanks for your fixed idea for my article as it gives me more challenge to protect this article from deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokuna (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brexx is back ...

... as FELANGI (talk · contribs). His socks are often all caps. He's back on Lindsay Lohan. Ward3001 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Good Charts

Thanks for the update. JayJ47 (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AFD notices

I'm sorry, but i thought that it was not necessary, beacuse added the sources and this album was confirmed by the Ashley's official site, which more is needed? Juanacho(talk) 20:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale article

Can you please help me. He/she is reverting again. I am honestly sick of this, doing everything all over again because some uncivilized little child doesn't like others contributing to his/her idol's article. This is unfair and abusive…. how no one is stopping this child from reverting. Why aren't there any administrators looking at the Tisdale article? In my opinion this user is abusing his/her advantages of editing on Wikipedia. Every edit is reverted by Juanacho, if Juanacho doesn’t agree with what the other users have done, he/she will just revert their edits immediately. This is abuse… But my opinion and edits don't matter, all of my effort means nothing this has been continuing for a very long time now. Why isn't there anyone stopping this user? And most of the images he/she has uploaded are non free media rationales and copyrighted. Why is no one bothered to stop this user? --Olivewildes (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (Fiction)

There seems to be some progress being made towards redrafting the guideline. Most of the arguments for a permissive guideline seem to have been countered in the sense that they have been found not to be viable. My attempts to obtain a compromise earlier this year seem to be leading towards a slightly stricter applciation of WP:V for fiction that should discourage topics which are only the subject of in universe plot summary, trivia and cruft. A recent post at WT:FICT#The rules seems to make this clear. Can you provide some cool and clear support towards drafting a compromise that is compliant with existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines? --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry I missed the mispelings[4], my browser doesn't like plug-ins. Chears. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

re the reverting of vandalism on my userpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officially Aaliyah: Rare and Unreleased

You put {{db-author}} on the AFD page. Are you trying to withdraw it? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Ron Ritzman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at MuZemike's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Author contested speedy after I typed my first reply. MuZemike 23:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible

You should have waited 2 or 3 days.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding this articles AfD nomination, I can end it early per WP:SNOW please do not revert that. by reverting it seems that you nominated this article in bad faith. §hawnpoo 01:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Them terribles

I relisted. No comment on notability because I don't care enough to look into it, but I think your ongoing questions/concerns should be addressed and no reason to close in 24 hours. StarM 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to watch what your doing. Interesting comment though: I don't care enough to look into it. §hawnpoo 02:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting your hasty close of an AfD open for less than 24 hours does not constitute behavior where StarM has to 'watch' what they are doing. Protonk (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protonk, thank you. Shawnpoo, Kww and I both explained exactly what my comment meant. I don't care about the subject enough to debate the merits of inclusion, I'm just explaining why I relisted. StarM 02:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sucker Punch

Hello. As I think a full protect may be too much (indeed, I'm not sure protecting a redirect after only one uncontested AFD because an article might be created is particularly process, but I see the point), I have protected it from editing by unregistered/new users. Esteffect (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spain Singles Chart

Hi Kevin. In your Chartproposal (which is magnificent) you have mentioned for Spain both PROMISCUAE and Ultratop. But I find a discrepancy in both the charts. While Ultratop is reporting the peak as U2, PROMISCUAE is giving a different artist as the peak one. Could you please clarify which one is correct? Acharts is mirroring the Ultratop one. Please help me reply back. I'm in urgent need to know which one is correct. --Legolas (talktome) 12:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well i also did further research and found that it is easy to reference the Promiscuae one as it has archives for each week (Go to charts --> All Charts --> History, you'll find them). Also Promiscuae stopped publishing the Physical chart from January hence i don't think we should be adding the ones from Ultratop or acharts anymore and hence they should be included for the BADCHARTS section in the chart proposal. What do you think? --Legolas (talktome) 12:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the search does generate a unique pdf. See here, this is for the week of 16/2 to 22/2 and this is for 9/2 to 16/2, they are different. They generate the indivitual pdfs. Hence i don't think it would be a problem regarding archiving. Ya, we do need to discuss this at the project page. --Legolas (talktome) 13:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops sorry for the above message, i thought you said unique referencing wasnot possible. He he. --Legolas (talktome) 13:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brothers

Jonas Brothers

I lack the access to edit Jonas_Brothers, and this is purely pedantic, but even Baz Luhrmann spelled La Bohème correctly - in the article (Jonas_Brothers#History) the accent is missing from the link.

"Let it develop"

The template was/is still completely under development. Going to the template alone does not provide a full sample with parameters, for example: I invite you to reconsider buying into contentions of "bad faith". Thank you. PetersV       TALK 17:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official Brazilian Airplay Chart

Crowley Broadcast Analysis is a multinational company specialized in electronic monitoring of radio that operates in Brazil since 1997. It is TOTTALLY OFFICIAL. I found it today. :) However, we can't access charts at Crowley Broadcast Analysis without paying for a subscription. I found some pdf. files through google. It is extremely difficult to find. Please, do not remove this chart again from Mariah Carey's articles. JuStar (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.  :) In response to your message, I deleted it because it seemed very...selective. The radio stations used in measuring "Touch My Body" (here) are about 1/4 of those used for "Bye Bye" (see link). How can such results be legitimate if they keep changing? It appears that the first one is for "Music News" while the second is for radio professionals. It can't be automatically assumed that the charts reflect nation-wide airplay. SKS2K6 (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you notice this, even though it's in the middle of your talk page now. Anyway, I noticed that you removed the Brazilian charts from those Mariah Carey single pages, and gave an explanation, but I have to clarify something. So what I'm understanding is that it's an internal chart meant only for the industry, right (and therefore not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia)? Anyway, just wanted to let you know that User:JuStar has since reverted your deletions, because s/he tends to be very protective of his/her chart inclusions, and will only stop adding them if given a direct reason for excluding a specific chart on a specific page, which is why I tend to have problems with said user on said pages. Just an FYI. (And can we somehow note those Brazilian charts on BADCHARTS or did you do it already?) :T SKS2K6 (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:BADCHARTS

Thanks for the update; I knew the Brazilian chart was listed, but not the Bulgarian. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me personally. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:What should I say

Given proper warning and been educated why those charts are not allowed. If it persists, I'll block the IP. Thanks for dropping by. --Efe (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked already for 31 hours. --Efe (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Record Charts

Some explanation for the link you removed at the page: it was a link to the page that describes what CMO means. RichV (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple watchlists

Thanks!

The Motley Moose

Sir, I noticed your comments in the Admin file on The Motley Moose, and wanted to correct a quick thing. That "speedy deletion" was sources two days into the AfD discussion, and the user who posted it on top of the AfD notice was rebuked by an administrator. Furthermore, again, please assume good faith; you're not the only one who has suggested I acted in bad faith, but a simple review of the logs will show this not to be the case. Also, if you are an administrator, I would ask you to please take a look at user "Bali Ultimate"'s recent behavior... some of it is highly concerning. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I did stop and bring it to an admin's attention... certainly you can see some merit in my argument, whether or not it was appropriate. If I could go back and just have flagged an admin immediately, I would have. That's my mistake. However, let me explain the events of the last AfD. First of all, I work for WP:BLOG, and it's in that capacity I work on and defend the article The Motley Moose. However, in the last AfD, it was assumed I was not only the article's creator, but the site's creator as well, and the author of several of the cited sources. This was all untrue, obviously, but since I only came into the AfD argument a day or two before it concluded, I didn't have a chance to address those misjudgments. In DRV, it was explained to me the only way DRV could come out was to enable consensus; essentially, I was told that even if www.whitehouse.gov was moved to the article's namesake, it wouldn't be able to be undeleted off of DRV; DRV was solely for consensus. So I withdrew my nomination, worked on the article, and reposted it- and in this capacity, I am now the article's creator. The logs will support all of this, please feel free to check any part of it. So I am continually puzzled as to where the problem is here, and why it keeps being an issue. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty Pleasure (album)

Hi, can you check my user page and say to me if now there's sufficient information to recreate Guilty Pleasure (album)? New tracks were confirmed as well the single and I was checking and there's a lot of albums articles with less informations such as the non-charting Speed of Light (album) and the unreleased Lines, Vines and Trying Times. New informations about the album will become available very soon so I think there's no problem to recreate the article. Thanks! Decodet (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll be waiting. Thanks. Decodet (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Hi Kww. Do you think this user is a sock of Brexx? --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I knew the name was familiar - I just wasn't quite sure who was the master. Thanks for the information. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain ...

... Upto30days (talk · contribs) is Brexx. Began on Lohan articles immediately after previous sock was block. He even resumed editing The Sims, just as before. Ward3001 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

acharts Billboard Hot 100

I thik another inclusion in your BADCHARTS/GOODCHARTS column. --Legolas (talktome) 05:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian chart

I've started a discussion at Talk:My_Love_(The-Dream_song). JuStar (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kunchi

Please speak your issue clearly, because I have a very good answer on all questions of such kind: "To what purpose?"- "To encyclopedic purpose". - 7-bubёn >t 19:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see better. It may be interesting for you to know that wikipedia has quite a few articles in category:Ghost towns. The reason is that wikipedia is not a shapshot of "today". It also looks back into the history. Therefore the concerns you expressed are relevant inasmuch as the internet contamination you described makes it very difficult to find a reasonable encyclopedic info. I have already met with this noise when researching for Siberia, California and some other articles. Now back to the essence of your question. My primary purpose was to fill the new Kunchi disambig page with whatever is n wikipedia: I always do so when I create a new dab page. I usually also try and fill the redlinks I create. Since I, as most of us, have a real life, this may take some time. If I fail to find anything of substance, I will just create a redirect and de-link it in the target page. - 7-bubёn >t 21:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing guide

Hey. I was going through the guide and thought maybe i could offer some more useful links that you could check out and consider. You used this link for the Dutch Top 40, but it links to this site for it's archive. This other site has a searchable database which is pretty easy to navigate and once you work out the difference between the Tipparade and Top 40 charts, it's fine. I just thought it would be easier to give the direct link, then hopefully people won't just reference the chart which changes weekly. Also, there's the Pandora Archive, which archives all of the ARIA Reports, it's useful because it doesn't just stop at number 50 like Ultratop and the ARIA site, it continues onto 100, quite helpful. Hopefully you find something out of this helpful. Cheers. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 04:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Correa-McMullen

I noticed that you had concerns about sources that were added by an IP editor [5]. The IP editor has not listened to me about the need for our articles to be based on accurate reporting of what reliable sources say. Would you mind dropping a note on the IP's talk page to see if you are able to communicate with the editor in a way that I have not been able to? Thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E=MC2.....

Actually, it's...well, they are the Korean titles for the Japanese albums from TVXQ, a Korean boyband. It's a bit of a mess, but because they're in the Japanese language, regardless of whether or not they're by a Korean group. I hope that makes sense. SKS2K6 (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but thankfully, these are actually Japanese songs, so it's more "foreign". I linked them to the correct titles (they have Wikipedia articles, so I linked to them directly). I also added a note on the formatting, because they're actually singles, but I guess Korea considers them "albums" because they're physical releases. SKS2K6 (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking accusations

What you need to understand is that monitoring problem editors and reverting the bad edits that they make isn't stalking: it's part of being a responsible Wikipedia editor. After grasping that, you also need to grasp what is usually a very difficult concept for people: in this conflict, you are playing the role of the bad guy, not the hero. Your interactions with TheRedPenOfDoom have been unpleasant, but they have been unpleasant because you aren't using reliable sources. Read, study, and comprehend WP:BLP and WP:RS, apply them in your editing, and all of your problems will go away.—Kww(talk) 04:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What u need 2 understand is that Im not a problem editor.
What u need 2 understand is that I AM being stalked & every edit I make is reverted.
What u need 2 understand is how it started. Last week redpen & I encountered 1 another on Elisabeth Hasselbeck. s/he is against including her marriage date/DOBs but I am for it. We went back & forth. We posted on disc page & the result was plastik/redpen against vs speil/tom/myself FOR. So I returned the info, then redpen complained & an editor who didnt take the time to research locked the page until 10Apr. Did redpen stop then? Nope.
redpen stalked me to Tim Hasselbeck-Omarosa-Carson Daly-Girlfriends-Charmed Anthony Mackie-Tara Correa-McMullen & on. On these pages all that Ive added is sourced info, but redpen rverted.

what is annoying is that redpen reverts my edit but doesnt improve the articles.

So what u need 2 grasp which may be very difficult 4 u 2 understand is that redpen is stalking me.
if redpen wants no marriagedates/DOBs in any wiki article y dint s/he focusing on that & going thru wiki & deleting this info. Instead s/he is trailing me throughout wiki & any edit I make s/he reverts citing wpblp or wpburden which is crap.wpblp has no definite rule on marriage & name. wpburden doesnt apply bc I add info 2 what is already present; so if s/t in the article is a lie or untrue REMOVE THAT PORTION not what I added that WAS SOURCED.

Ive asked many times but u all wont go back LOOK at my edit & then redpen's subsequent edit. Is it bc Im an anon poster? Who knows. This has been going on for sinc 22Mar week & no 1 gives a d*mn. U all label me the problem editor & post warnings 2 me. Yet still nothing has been said to redpen! U all told me 2 step back--but didnt tell redpen to--which I did. The 1s time I completely left the Hasselbeck articles & edited elsewhere but redpen pursued me there. Yesterday(26Mar) when I stepped back & returned 4 hrs later again all my edits were reverted.

If u or another editor wants to shadow me fine. U r neutral. redpen isnt. redpen is a stalker. I dont want nothing 2 do w redpen unless it has 2 do w Elisabeth Hasselbeck page. 70.108.102.252 (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you very much for your help!--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy London

Thanks for the explanation. I could not figure out for the life of me why my post kept getting deleted (I don't know how to look up the reason for removal--I figured out why it was removed using the link you posted about sources). 98.99.3.166 (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found it; the "History" section. Thx again. 98.99.3.166 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian chart

I'm starting to get tired of it. As I said, this is clearly a national chart. I appreciate that do not remove it again. Thank you. --JuStar (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, we all know that this company is accurate. I won't discuss it again. Crowley Broadcast Analysis is recognized worldwide and it is an official company. This is definitely a reliable source. --JuStar (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And so what? This does not imply a disregard for Wikipedia's policies. So, nothing justifies removing an official chart. I am working to find an archive. --JuStar (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation? It is funny. I do not know how the chart appears on the Internet, signed by Crowley...Perhaps because it is Crowley that makes it, no? Your objections are unfounded. --JuStar (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Jiroux

I am onee of the managers of mandy jiroux's fansite and I decided to look for her wikipedia page(Mandy Jiroux is Miley Cyrus's best friend) and I couldn't create a page for her I was wondering how I could because I know info like when she was born,where and Early life and career! --Tori100tcg (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC) (Comment back on my disscussion)[reply]

Barnstar?

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for helping all the users on wikipedia by answering the questions and helping them!--Tori100tcg (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Mandy Jiroux

Thank you! I wanted know since not many people have told me.My name's Tori! Thanks again for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tori100tcg (talk • contribs) 17:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it, leave me alone

........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drawnunderwateryeah (talk • contribs) 20:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne

I think I am going to commit 3RR. Can you please take a look at the article. Its messed up. Merely because of POV pushers. Duh, about genres. Thanks in advance. --Efe (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

I'll keep your suggestion in mind. Thanks Kevin. --Legolas (talktome) 14:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kevin, I think I was going to commit a 3RR on the Lady Gaga discography page. An IP is continuously adding Spain in the country list with an inaccurate link, which only displays the current chart but not a permanent one. I kept removing it, the IP kept reverting the changes. I warned the IP also that I'll report if 3RR is committed but I myself might have done it. Can you please check.? --Legolas (talktome) 15:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks....

for biting the bullet and opening an "investigation". I didn't know how to, but it was time someone (finally) did it.  :) (I know I'm being vague, but I hope what I say makes sense. :P) SKS2K6 (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI notification

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Song_articles_incidents about your editing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nom. Nom. Nom.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 2. — Coren (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin discussion

I went back and spent more time than I should have looking over old discussions. I do apologize for indicating that there were civility problems on your part and I've updated my comments to reflect that. As noted, my recollection of those interactions were very negative, but looking back on what I could find, you were quite civil in your interactions with me. Chalk it up to bad memories of those discussions. My apologies. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOODCHARTS

What do the stars and colored circles in the table of charts mean? The page has no legend for the meaning of these. - Mgm|(talk) 08:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't specific

I wasn't specific because I didn't want to give the appearance of "forum shopping".

I'll look in my notes for those {{afd}}, it may take me a while. Geo Swan (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My oppose

God, I feel like a class A moron. I was just about to get all huffy and pull out some diffs when I realized I was misattributing one or two egregious comments to you. I'm really not sure how I managed to be so boneheaded, but I withdrew my oppose and switched to neutral. Thanks for calling me out, I would never have noticed otherwise. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think that was it... I guess I just spent too much time away from the page after I gave up on it and got you confused with some of the other regulars (how, since your name is pretty much dissimilar to everyone elses, I'm not sure). Once again, my apologies. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did the same thing, maybe even confusing with the same editor. Not sure how I managed that either. Hobit (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

boom boom pow

what do you want. billboard posted that it is the new number 1! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amare135 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re

on billboard here http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/black-eyed-peas-score-first-no-1-on-hot-1003960617.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amare135 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:Boom Boom Pow

Yes, I used that source for the billboard articles. i have not updated the BBP article since that news story was published, figured i'd leave that to others. - eo (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Life Would Suck Without You

People keep removing the electropop genre from the article and when it is addded with sources giving info that relates to the genre, they remove it because they are to incompetent to read the sources.--96.242.196.159 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoru Kuroki

Hi, Kww. I just cited the source-- The Bornoff chapter that covers the actress' career quite extensively. Sure, all names mean something, and are usually insignificant to the person bearing the name. But these adult actresses take stage names, and, often, the meaning... means something... which, I assume is why Bornoff mentions it, and why I think it is of interest to a reader of an article on the actress. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Kww. I notice that instead of responding to me you ran off whining to an Admin over this huge issue. No, Bornoff does not give the literal translations of every Japanese name. That would be stupid. He does give the literal translation of Kuroki's stage name, which is why I included it in the article. Here's the exact quote, if you can make the effort to extend enough good faith that I would honesty transcribe it: "Kaoru Kuroki (Fragrance Blacktree) is the pseudonym of the only child of a well-to-do, middle-class family..." HERE is a Google book search that shows it. Of course I probably just made all that up, because I'm one of the cabal of radical name-translation POV-pushers or whatever the hell it is you think I'm guilty of. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I preferred "poosily", but thanks for fixing it! Rodhullandemu 02:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#aceshowbiz.com

Could you take another look? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Tried my best. As I said earlier, you can survive pissing off the extreme inclusionists, but when you piss off the pseudo-science crackpots as well, you've had it. Black Kite 00:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's a lot closer this time. I'm really hopeful that Kww will make it in on a third attempt.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not dead yet. One 10-vote long surge is all I need. Of course, I could win Powerball tomorrow, too.—Kww(talk) 02:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful comment in regards to my oppose vote on your RfA. I certainly agree that wikipedian promoters of crackpot ideas are still promoter of crackpot ideas and can be called on that. Though, of course, calling them crackpots personally can be a WP:CIVIL issue. The key to my concern is linking the reliability of a source to the truth of the theory it expounds. While most fringe theories thrive in walled gardens of uncritical sources a few do not and their claims must be treated with more respect not because they are actually reasonable but because they are widely held and taught. (Yes, religion is the elephant in the room.) Anyway, I'll expound a bit on the uncertainty I expressed in the RfA. While I hold neither your deletionism nor the concerns of DGG against you, I do worry about your tendency to attract drama even if your are never yourself uncivil. Even if you are yourself blameless (and I haven't evaluated your history in enough detail to have an opinion one way or the other), this isn't a good quality for an admin to have. Adminship is not a reward, but is instead given out (or should be) based on what is best for the encyclopedia. I am not sure that granting you the admin bit would help make the encyclopedia better, even if you never abuse the tools, given the drama your actions would attract. To the extent that the foregoing reflects badly on the wikipedia community rather than you, it shouldn't, in fairness, be held against you. But since adminship is not a reward, my oppose shouldn't be construed as a negative judgment on your contributions as a wikipedian. As you can see, I remain conflicted about the issue. I'll consider changing my vote to neutral and sleep on it. Best of luck with your future endeavours in any event. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re my mistake at WP:RFA, I self-reverted as soon as I saw the heading on the output page. --Philcha (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent the last hour searching for where my impression of your policy was formed. The main item is Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_28#Too_deletionist, where you supported a strict interpretation of WP:N's "significant coverage". The issue I had with that is that popular culture topics of wider scope than specific products (e.g. 4X) receive little coverage in any one source because the concepts are taken for granted by sources. That's where my recollection about "popular culture" came from. As phrased in my comment at the RfA it's inaccurate, so I'll delete that comment. However, despite the fact that you're very bright and I liked your humorous demonstration of your own non-notability at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_28#Too_deletionist, I don't fancy the idea of your being the closing admin in an AfD or any other deletion-related issue / dispute. --Philcha (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason

Well done, went right over my head. Another reason you would make a good admin. You can spot a sock puppet a mile away. — R2 02:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've told the admin who dealt with the last IP. — R2 22:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA closed

Your RFA has been closed as unsuccessful. Thank you for your interest. You can work on the concerns raised and try again later. Best regards. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above, one thing to keep in mind and something you can hold me to is that I do not like to repeat the same things in RfAs, so in a third RfA, I would consider what has been said and done since this one, i.e. for example, I would mention the two blocks again, and would not recycle the same diffs and arguments. I can't say I would necessarily support, but barring something new in the interim, you have a realistic chance of not as determined as an oppose and as I've said before, I'd rather come to understandings with editors that not. Anyway, I'm getting ready for a dissertation break, so Happy Editing in the mean time. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Abuse filter/Requested.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- IRP ☎ 22:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juanacho sockpuppets

Hello, I just thought you might be interested: Sockpuppet investigations/Juanacho I strongly believe Juanacho and Soulyaboy are linked.-- Olivewildes (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

That's an award-winning edit summary right there :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Charts

I'm not 151.49.235.225! I understand and I'm not stupid! first I didn't know the rules, but now I respect them.--Dear87 (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My frustration

It just frustrates me that I have to do the same thing day-by-day, the exact same reverts. I feel like a robot lol. I will try to tone it down, thanks for the heads up. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 201.209.224.71's defence, there has been a few different IPs adding that #14 charting of Thinking of You, and I'm really not sure why. The reference clearly has nothing, but multiple editors have added it back in. It is a bit strange, they may have just seen it, realized it was removed and thought it'd be a good idea to re-add it. Not sure. Is there another RS for the Italian charts we can check? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 19:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've already taken it to ANI. Just to clarify, there was more activity on the discog page. 79.53.197.239 was the first IP to add it, i reverted, he/she later re-added and referenced the Thinking of You WP page. Next to add it was 87.11.132.214 and then finally the IP in question - 201.209.224.71. So 201.209.224.71 taking a ban for it, may be a little harsh. 82.56.111.250 has now done it as well... k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 19:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have just figured out what all the fuss was about with IPs adding the #14 Italian charting of "Thinking of You" to Katy Perry's articles. This url, which was later removed by another IP, was posted to the discog. On first glance, I was thinking there was a problem with their archives, because it is clearly at #14, but i soon realized that it is the Digital Singles chart, not the official one. So, problem solved. Hopefully they realize this and stop re-adding it. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Demi Lovato's Second Album.

The reason I included THREE news articles that stated her summer tour was in support of her second album is because it actually is. She has publicly stated on her live chat she recently had that she HAS been in the studio and that the album is almost done and will come out in July. Since there is no way to cite her live chat, I was unable to provide that information. Without the source of what she said in her live chat, there are other means of citing that she has a second album coming out and that's exactly what was there. The wikipedia entry on herr discography didn't say a date, just that there WAS an album, which all three and many more news releases have said she will be releasing and that she's supporting it on her upcoming tour. There is plenty of information out there to know that there is going to be a second album coming this summer, so her page should be updated with that information. Rockin56 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to her live chat video, she specificaly states that her album IS going to come out in July. Here is her exact quote from the live chat: "I am recording a new album right now! I'm actually writing it, I just kind of finished writing it. We're really putting it together and it's going awesome. I'm so excited. I think you guys are going to really like it. It actually comes out this July! So I'm so excited. It's coming out early. Like really really really! I think it'll be awesome too while I'm on tour for you guys to start learning some of the songs before it comes out and then you can go check out the CD and know all the songs at the shows." That's exactly what she said in the live chat, so that's not a 'crystal ball' statement, that's a definite plan. Rockin56 (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth

You can continue to bully and intimidate. You can delete everything I write. You can continue to try to suppress the facts about Judge Bybee. But, as we all know, the truth has a way of revealing itself. And, by the way, you're not being vigilant enough. You missed my comment about John Yoo, and you missed a few other changes made to Bybee's article. Have fun with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by York1950 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to have any personal information on wikipedia, adresses, telephone numbers Id's- it is wiki policy for any person to be able to remove personal information not appriopriate for a public forum- this talk page is also spilling over into google, and at the bottom someone wriote that real people are hoaxes- very irresponsible.4.143.239.89 (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wiki policy to be able to remove any personl info like as address, ID or phone number- that is not appropriate to do- very irresponsible4.143.239.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion & 'consenus'

I still don't see much 'discussion' or consensus concerning adding a bot to the Temple garment page ... my question still stands: WHO added this 'feature' to that article? Duke53 | Talk 14:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JuStar sock

Hey there Kww, I noticed you have a sock investigation of JuStar and thought I'd link you to another sock not yet listed. — Σxplicit 02:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music Charts

The italian singles chart reported on acharts.us is the same of M&D (Musica & Dischi), the official italian magazine about italian Singles and Albums charts...So I can't understand why it's not a reliable source...And you also said that's not the official italian singles chart...so tell me: where's the official one? Thanks.

No...italianchart.com has the offcial Top 20 singles chart DIGITAL...M&D counts the airplay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventu.pimp (talk • contribs) 14:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmhh...What can I do? Become member of M&D.it costs 100 euros...you just have to trust me...just look at the job I've done in almost Rap discography...look at 50 Cent's discographies...I did a monumental work on it...

1 evidence: look at the Italian Singles Chart (Top 5) on acharts.us and compare it to the top 5 M&D shows in its website: it's the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventu.pimp (talk • contribs) 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that different italian editors said so plus the fact that EVERY WEEK acharts.us and M&D have the same Top 5 plus the fact that the the creator of acharts said so should be enough...am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventu.pimp (talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventu.pimp (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing...

...[6]? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had hoped you would have remembered our discussion about leveling inflammatory accusations against people who happen to disagree with you in the middle of your AN/I threads. I don't think I need to tell you that a single message on a talk page doesn't constitute canvassing. This is nearing a final warning for this nonsense. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that people who happen to disagree with me should not post on talk pages of those who are likely to agree with them to get them to come to support their stances. Such nonsense is unacceptable. People can comment however they see fit without needing to be urged outside of the discussion to support some other proposal. Be objective. Asking someone who obviously doesn't like me to support some kind of ban proposal is an obvious attempt to garner support for that stance. It doesn't have to be posted to mass numbers of editors to be problematic. You don't see me posting talk page requests for any inclusionist minded editors to come support my proposals. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it was a specific reply to this edit, so I don't think accusations of canvassing apply at all. Notice that the title of my post on Eusebeus's talk page wouldn't even make sense without the context of having read Eusebeus's post at ANI.—Kww(talk) 03:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why take the discussion off of their? Again, I am not asking those who might be inclined to side with me on their talk pages to consider commenting. It's best to just keep discussions in one place than to have additional threads elsewhere and as I posted there, Fram pretty much handled the warning I was looking for, which renders the discussion I started moot. I acknowledged as much and moved on to other projects like helping Durova work on a potential DYK. As I think Roux said, no need to beat a dead horse. It's bad enough there is also the A Man In Black/Ikip thread as it is. There is enough tension on ANI at the moment and among this particular group of editors, with Roux saying it's beating a dead horse, Eusebeus calling ofr an archive now, me saying Fram's warning is sufficient, we shouldn't try escalating things and raising tensions any further. Rather, we should focus on more productive ventures as I did after my last comment there. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Specifically because the discussion at ANI is getting too long and convoluted, with too many scattering threads. Two editors, having both commmented at a community discussion, are free to comment at each other's talk pages in a side discussion. It's normal. It's open. It's specifically not canvassing. If you want to talk to anyone that you believe supports you that has already commented on the discussion at ANI, feel free. There are no restrictions against doing that at all. It helps keep the main discussion free and uncluttered. The restrictions against canvassing are to avoid recruiting a biased group ... I can't recruit Eusebeus, because he's already there.—Kww(talk) 03:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see why, if anything, not just reply there, but again, at this point, what's the point? It's time to move on, which seems to be the consensus at this point anyway, so I'm going back to welcoming people who edited articles on my watchlist while I read about the Roman Empire for school and listen to The Daily Show. Take care! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The drama and nonsense infects your talk page too, I see, KWW. My sympathies. Next time, I will fully support a full-on block for pumpkin. AN/I is serving like some kind of weird enabler and it needs to stop henceforth. Eusebeus (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobody, you're missing my point. This was a specific and clear warning that if you keep this behavior up someone, maybe me, will block you. In the conversation that ensued immediately I was under the impression that we had an understanding. I am now going to be VERY explicit. If you find yourself tempted to escalate a disagreement or pursue an accusation against someone who happens to be on the opposite side of a dispute like this, resist the temptation. If you don't, and you make some half-cocked accusation of canvassing and respond to my warning by gainsaying and twisting my words, you will be blocked. Period. Is that understood? I'm posting the message here rather than your talk page so you don't feel you have the liberty to redact it without comment, but this warning is direct at you and you alone. Protonk (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

possible block evasion

This sock puppet of Greatz00 has got a new account it seems. — R2 03:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?????

is there something wrong with u,ur source is a fan site,and mine is a real source. u are a fool,who is using a fan made sight as a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mammamia9905 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

i apologize for calling u a fool,but i dont appreciate people accusing me of things i didnt do.

this is the first time i have made a wikipedia account,so i would appreciate not to be accused of reincarnateing os sockpuppeting

????

i have the same source as u for the ballads,the rest was already there,and u can check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mammamia9905 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

k

i didnt make that change,that was old that just got stuck to my edits.i do appreciate though,u taking the time to explain the issue to me. understood,thanx

Thank you

I would like to thank you for your help with reverting Mammamia9905 vandalizing edits and improving Mariah Carey related articles. Now that Mammamia9905 is blocked indefinitely, we can make these articles reliable as only they can be. Max24 (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts, two in one hour

you wrote: It's a BLP. I don't take unsourced derogatory material to talk pages. I delete it immediately until the author can provide a valid source. In this case, you've provide one dead link and one link that was apparently temporarily cached for your use only. Please, always provide a correct and verified citation, and double-check that citation before saving the edits, especially on a biography of a living person.—Kww(talk) 01:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kww, I have no idea what a BLP is. I do know that you could be more diplomatic in raising objections. If you know better how to search Thomas.gov and come up with a non-temporary URL, it would be useful for you to say that. Talk pages are helpful for that sort of thing. In the absence of your wanting to be helpful in this case, you might mention that the link is temporary and ask that a more permanent one be provided. Instead you reverted. Twice in one hour! Because you did not like the content!

Your [[POV}} point of view is on display with both of these reverts of what you consider (but Senator Reid and Senator Ensign do not consider) to be "unsourced derogatory material." These senators would not have supported Bybee had they not believed in his writings. What is derogatory about a Republican thanking a Democrat for help in pushing through a nomination? Some people think it is interesting that Bybee would not have lifetime tenure without bipartisan support at the leadership level.Skywriter (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

"This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors"

If something's inclusion is not widely accepted, it clearly isn't policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bump (song)

Done, thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sucker Punch!

Since production of Sucker Punch starts on June, can you give a review on this page for the movie I made on my sandbox? Please and thank you. [7] Kikkokalabud (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultratip charts

  • [Ultratop.be] in this link you can see both, both wallonia and flanders' charts and their ultatrip charts. you can add this link. but i guess you've already know that site? if you're saying "i know that site but there must be a great explanation that ultratip follows the ultratop charts" well i have no enough links to send but i can guarantee that system is true when you check the songs which enter the ultratop charts they first enter the ultratip charts. --Triancula (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • hi again! once i'd like to add the turkish charts to the WP:Record_charts , can you add it? i tried but couldn't. turkish album charts are published by Müyap & as you see there IFPI, turkish airplay singles chart are published by Nielsen and Billboard Türkiye could you add the table? and no archives yet. i hope one day we all can see the archives... --Triancula (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bandslam soundtrack

Someone actually uploaded a soundtrack cover for Bandslam. Do you think this is real? [8] Kikkokalabud (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nominated for deletion.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ogg files

How do you download ogg files from mp3 files?--Electroide (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish

The previous link provided by the IP was broken and couldnot be accessed. Only after the IP provided a working link, I stopped reverting it. You can check my talk page for further details. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scorecard

You can't tell the difference between me and Thuranx? We're probably both mortally offended :-) Philcha (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Live! update

From what I know, Odyssey Album Chart is the only weekly album sales tabulation in the Philippines, and the weekly top 20 is posted on the internet.

greek charts

well, i'd made a decision and do not really believe that radio1 is the official chart that plays with the national radio/tv stations system. it's clear to see that radio 1 publishes their own chart. but my dear greek friend works hard for me to assure his opinion. :) well i'm not gonna give up. of course i see that they are all incomplete but isn't it so unneccessary to add 2 more greek charts although there is a billboard chart there? i think we should start searchin' and be sure that radio1 charts are official or not. quickly we should give a decision and then, add the good or bad charts section. but if you ask to me, i think it's obviously not official. waiting for your answer. ;) --Triancula (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Paradiso Girls

The IP still had a valid argument. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Other language editions have articles on this subject, which means it is considered notable" is indeed a valid argument. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I'll watchlist that page. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, I re-closed it as delete. Thanks for knocking some sense into me! –Juliancolton | Talk 01:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on this one, Kevin; glad you followed up. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 04:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Sex Magic / WP:BADCHARTS

Point taken! And apologies for missing Germany - someone fixed the cite for India so I saw if flash past in my watchlist; I should have checked the others for top40-charts.com too.

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]