Buz Lukens

Sharp & Smooth

Why would you delete the Sharp and Smooth page when it passes according to Wikipedia policy? That is quite ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.136.89 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, I recommended a relist. The admin who closed the discussion felt that a consensus for deletion was reached. The notability guideline is a formulation of community consensus, and is not binding. However, if you want you can open a case for this at the Deletion review. If you need help with it please get back to me, although I'm probably going to be offline till Monday. --Amalthea^Talk 16:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note though that it doesn't clearly pass the notability criterion of WP:MUSIC#C10, I personally don't think that the compilation albums themselves are notable, lacking significant coverage. --Amalthea^Talk 17:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for getting back to me. Your help would be highly appreciated. Please do help me open the case! Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amg1234 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• by the way - I did a search on Yahoo "Cream Ibiza Paul Van Dyk" - there are 614,000 DIRECT results.. tell me there is no notability! : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amg1234 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• The deleting admin has restored the article and relisted the deletion discussion for three more days. I've invited the editors who commented before to review their opinion.
  Let me repeat here that I still think that the duo lacks sufficient notability for encyclopaedic inclusion. To get technical, the two compilations are not notable by themselves (they lack significant coverage in reliable third-party sources), they only inherit notability through WP:MUSIC#Albums from the notable musicians PvD and Peter Rauhofer. I'm convinced that WP:MUSIC can't be daisy-chained to pass on notability even further.
  Let's see if there is going to be consensus, in the end that's all that counts. --Amalthea^Talk 16:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, I appreciate your help. Let me ask you.. if they and an article by a third party publisher - would that help? If so, within a few days there is supposed to be a major article written about some of their work in a very reputable music news website! Let me know. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.100.16 (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. That would have to be very significant coverage from a very significant music reviewer.
  So far, there is strong consensus against encyclopaedic inclusion. To pass the notability inclusion guideline a topic needs significant coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. Not knowing the article I can only assume that it will not be enough to show the duo's encyclopaedic notability.
  If it gets deleted once the AfD is closed again please don't try and recreate it under some other name. Instead, if you think at some point in the future that it now passes WP:NOTABILITY, create the article in your user space (e.g. at User:Amg1234/Sharp and Smooth), include the new references, write it from a neutral point of view, make sure all facts are verifiable, and once you think it is ready contact me, User:VirtualSteve‎ or any administrator to have a look at it, so that it can be moved into article space.
  Amalthea^Talk 09:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Who is eligible to vote for consensus? Anyone or just admins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.100.16 (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that it's not a majority vote. It's editors (any editors, not only admins) expressing opinions why the topic at hand passes or fails the notability guideline.
  In particular, you shouldn't encourage likeminded people to join the discussion, per WP:Canvassing. It will give the closing admin a harder time, but he will discard such opinions pretty quickly when trying to determine community consensus. --Amalthea^Talk 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Say OK

You requested a redirect for Say OK in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Say OK. An editor has since built a new version of the article in userspace, in hopes of being able to restore the article. Can you look at User:Kikkokalabud/Sandbox/Say OK and see if your objections have been satisfied? Please discuss at the sandbox talk page, User talk:Kikkokalabud/Sandbox/Say OK.Kww (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it looks fine. Notability was never in question, and there is enough verifiable material to warrant an article. Once it is moved into article space Image:Vanessa Hudgens - Say OK.jpg should be restored and used in the article. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 22:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Shogun

Sorry I didn't see that, someone removed my citation petition and I accidentaly put that non notable review back. --Kmaster (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jessie Jacobs

Hi
Thanks for the clarification in the Jessica Jacobs article. Do you have a source handy that Sound of Music was in production in 1999, cause I haven't found one.
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 13:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

http://kids.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=53711 - the article is misleading by omission though - the Sound of Music was cast and went into rehearsals in late '99. Paul Austin (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's good, it mentions a successful audition in 1999, that's pretty explicit. I added it to the article. Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 19:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit at List of Scientologists‎

You may not have been aware but there was quite a bit of discussion on this and also a Request for Comment and the majority of users seemed to consider various primary sources associated with the Church of Scientology as not satisfactory for usage with this list (archived discussion). Best to rely on secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V, and avoid usage of primary sources affiliated with the subject of the article. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hmm, OK, sorry about the revert then, I honestly thought you just missed the reference in the article.
I removed the Scientology membership allegation from her article as well, since a cursory search didn't bring up any reliable source confirming it.
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 22:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

un-constructive edits on Jordin Sparks page?

=> I am not sure what you are talking about. I took out vandalism text as below: She also went on to say that her favourite kind of ring is the onion ring, because she is such a fat fuck and eats them all day long. She also said she wears a promise ring too, but we all know this is so she has an excuse to why no one will sleep with her, and this way she doesnt have to admit she gets no action because of her excess weight.

is that not constructive?

Oops ... I must say, I apparently clicked on the wrong IP, I meant to warn the user who introduced the sentence, not you. I'm very sorry, and struck my comment from above, and let me instead say thank you for taking care of it. :)
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 23:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay

Hi
I noticed that you made some editing tests in the Keke Palmer article. Can I ask you to, in the future, do such tests in the sandbox instead? Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 23:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC), who hopes you find your inspiration :)

I will i just didnt understand how do you make your own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley Tucker (talk • contribs) 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your own user page is at User:Ashley Tucker. Please don't mistake the article at "Ashley Tucker" for your user page. I moved your text from there to your user page. I requested deletion of the article at Ashley Tucker again, since I'm afraid you are probably not yet famous enough for an article in an encyclopaedia. Well, neither am I. :)
All articles about users should be in their own "user space", so for you that's usually User:Ashley Tucker.
Feel very free to ask me if you have further questions, or go to the help desk. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 23:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

Whoa... that is a weird bug... Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

90210

Hi
I removed your addition of the http://watch-90210.com episode list again: we already have an on-wiki list of episodes, and I believe it shouldn't be in the article per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. If you disagree, can you come to Talk:90210 (TV series) and discuss it please?
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 19:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a bit disappointed that you ignored me so completely. Can you please, instead of readding it, discuss the link at Talk:90210 (TV series) first, to get other editors' opinions? Thanks. --Amalthea^Talk 11:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

hello,

I just saw your messages, sorry! I didn't notice them. I can't figure out how to use the "talk" page you sent me to.

I understand why you deleted the link. However, the other 90210 episodes link is a summary of the episodes. The link that I sent people to is a place where they can watch the episodes for free. Big Difference, see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.12.70 (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just click on the "new section" link at the top of the talk page to start a new thread.
After looking at the external page a bit more, and at your other contributions, I'm even more convinced that it shouldn't be in the article. It is apparent that you have a conflict of interest since you seem to be affiliated with the watch-*.com articles, and all you are doing is promoting your external websites, which is violating WP:LINKSPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Also, the software used on the pages to watch the episodes, Zango, seems a bit dubious.
There are many places where one can get episodes of a TV series. Encyclopaedic articles on Wikipedia are, however not a guide to the TV or the internet, and as I said the external links guideline quite explicitly forbids links like yours. Also note that all your other links were removed as spam as well, and not by me.
But, as I said before, if you still disagree fell very free to go Talk:90210 (TV series), open an new section and ask other editors who are involved with the article.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 12:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details.

P.S. I'm right with you on electronic voting machines; I've been watchlisting Premier Election Solutions for a while now. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ukhome

Hi,

I see you're watching articles in Ukhome's area of interest; I've seen the last warning you sent him. If he does it again please feel free to drop me a line (I unblocked him, so I feel morally responsible for his "probation"). I will watch his contributions anyway, but since my interests don't intersect his I might be less prompt noticing a blunder than you are. Of course, feel free to ignore this message just the same. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 October 4. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Move and formal procedure noted, thank you. --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've put it up at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 October 4#Image:Shironamhin01.jpg. Thanks, Amalthea^Talk 20:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, but I think this is reasonable permission to assume GFDL. I'm aware it's not a formal release under this license, but I think the intention is clear enough not to bother with such details, unless someone actually makes an issue out of this. My opinion is that they're so small they need this kind of publicity -- but if you feel we really need a formal release under GNU FDL I'll support that. --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, upon more careful inspection I noticed the word "gratis" is actually part of that forum admin's signature, it's not -- as I originally assumed -- specifically related to that picture. That changes my understanding of what he actually meant -- I have to go now, but I'll deal with it later today. If Ukhome starts uploading a ton of pics while I'm gone then I would endorse a speedy block. --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him for two weeks, image deleted. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking care of it. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a source that Hoopz wins I Love Money

Just wanted to let you know. It basically predicted who goes home, and has been right so far. Lildandcd93 (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I have absolutely no doubt that this is true. The show has been produced quite a while ago, and I'm sure that those rumors are based on leaked information.
However, that's not how this encyclopaedia works. Every bit of fact needs to be verifiable by reliable sources. Verifiability is one of the five pillars this project stands on. The source you found is, as far as I can tell, anything but a reliable source – it's more a gossip blog thing, accepting and distributing anonymous information.
If we'd start accepting sources like those then the amount of plain untrue information in articles would skyrocket in no time, so I'm afraid that I have to remove it again until it is confirmed by a reliable source (which almost certainly isn't going to happen until after the respective episode has aired, since the studios' press releases always come with a don't-print-before date attached).
If you disagree, feel very free to come to Talk:I Love Money again to post your source there and discuss it.
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 00:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for clearing that up. Lildandcd93 (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

about en.wikipedia.org/wiki/shironamhin

shironamhin site owner ziaur rahman gave me the permission of the history for to write in the shironamhin wiki page.

u can see the permission

http://www.shironamhin.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6295

so plz consider it and inform me about it.

ukhome —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

Gutza has already replied on your talk page regarding this. --Amalthea^Talk 12:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your warning

Hello, I saw your warning on this user talk page. I'm not an admin and there was another attack...thought I'd let you know, Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time, just report them to WP:AIV, they got a level4im warning and another warning was not necessary. I did not block them now though because there were no new edits after your warning. SoWhy 15:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was about to say once he got blocked. Thanks for the cookie. :)
--Amalthea^Talk 15:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that next time...thank you both! ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

SoWhy has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Thanks for reverting that edit on my userpage and being nice and friendly and explaining to the user who did it. That's the spirit, so here's a cookie for you! :-) SoWhy 15:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

yeah bout the freeze t-pain song...........................

suck my nutts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.153.188 (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

um bout stayin cool..............

stop talking to me when and go suck some nutts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.153.188 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sugababes

I removed it because even though it was in the news of the world the Sugababes have not sold 20 million albums world wide it is a near impossible figure when in the U.K which is their biggest market their sales are just over 7 million for singles & albums combined and with them getting very little cirtification outside of the U.K for sales I find it very hard to believe that they have sold 13 million + elsewhere.

when you considder the best they have done is gold in Germany, they have gotten no cirtifications in America, Japan or Australia.

The news of the world obviously have not done their reasearch again, They are the same newspaper that says Mariah Carey has sold over 250 million albums and with them releasing NOTHING apart from a single in the U.K over the past month how have they all of a sudden sold so many albums when 2 months ago there was no talk so much number and as I said its hardly as if Girls has sold several millions to put them in that kind of league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.236.21 (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for your notice on my talk page. I undid my edit again, so that sentence is gone now. You were right that it was poorly sourced, it actually only spoke of "20 MILLION record sales", not album sales, and our discography article also has completely different album sales figures.
Sorry that I mistook your edit as unconstructive. As it says above, when removing content, or doing any edits really that aren't self explanatory, it immensly helps if you fill in the edit summary. :)
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Amalthea

I did not realise I did not sign in when I made the edits, I see you removed it but somebody keeps putting it back up, Is there anyway to stop this? As you see its totally a false claim by a tabloid newspaper.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.236.21 (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The user is using a dynamic IP, so it's harder to get in contact with him, but there are several ways. First one was to leave explanatory messages in the edit summaries. If he undos again, I'd strike up a discussion on the talk page and refer to it in the edit summary, maybe even leave an additional hidden comment in the article itself referring to it. One could also first try to find a compromise in the article itself, e.g. word it in a way that is acceptable to both sides.
At this point, the user is acting in good faith, since the source can be read in that way, so stronger measures aren't warranted.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 11:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User page

Something on my watch-list led me to your elegantly sparse user page, from which I have pinched an idea for my own. Thanks! JohnCD (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How nice of you to tell me. Feel free to rip it off as you please. :) Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 09:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Marguerite and Carl Stephenson/ concerning our bio

Dear Amalthea,

My wife Marguerite and I needed to change elements of our wiki page for Carl Stephenson (producer). Please leave it as it is. The previous version has misinformation and endangers our privacy.

Thank you

Marguerite and Carl Stephenson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrenfrog (talk • contribs) 06:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for getting in touch and explaining your changes.
The article was now significantly reduced in size, to only keep what seems to be well sourced. This in particular includes two pieces of information that were removed in your version of the biography, and that according to secondary sources seem to be highly notable aspects of your career: your co-authorship of "Loser" (Beck song), and your band Forest for the Trees.
I do not know the reasons why you chose to remove those, but best I can tell they are established facts and will remain in the article.
We aspire to write a neutral encyclopaedia here, so we cannot accept you writing your own "official" biography. However, you are of course very welcome to point out errors or suggest changes to the article, preferrably at the article's discussion page Talk:Carl Stephenson (producer).
I hope this is something we can agree upon. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 15:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for communication your thoughts

Dear Amalthea,

We recently took your advice and added more information, including a discography. We reverted some of the phrases to your original document, with minor changes that reflect Carl Stephenson's and his wife Rita Stephenson's perspectives.

Thank you once again for your concern and efforts towards this biography.

Wrenfrog (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Wrenfrog

double redirect elimination

I just wanted to explain why sometimes I create double redirects, like the one you undid at If I Were A Boy. People created the correct capitalization, If I Were a Boy, too early. It hasn't met WP:NSONGS yet, but there's about a 99% chance that it will within a few weeks of release. It's sitting there, redirected to the parent album, waiting to be restored. Once it is restored, then If I Were A Boy should redirect to If I Were a Boy. By setting up the redirect in advance, nothing will have to be done, and no one will have to remember all the capitalization variations. Now, once the article is created, someone will have to remember that there is an alternate capitalization and that they have to fix it. It isn't such a big deal here, but when it's a title like If a Man and a Woman Try To Repair the Love They Once Had, the capitalization variations can drive you nuts. By having all alternates redirect to the correct title, and the correct title do whatever it should do, life gets simpler.—Kww(talk) 11:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, all right, that makes absolute sense. I think I came to the page through a link, so I experienced the double redirect firsthand. Next time I'll fix all incoming links to the correct capitalization, that's something I should have done anyway. If there's no incoming links, the only thing left is that the search box ATM directs you to If I Were A Boy if you enter "if i were a boy", so a reader would still drop out at the double redirect.
I kinda wonder, that's just another case where multi-redirects would be very useful if they were supported by the software. I can't imagine that implementing them in MediaWiki is that hard, or taxing …
Amalthea^Talk 11:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Rihanna

Hi
Heh, yes, I know, I should have first tagged the image as a copyright violation, and then removed it from the article. It took me a little longer then with the previous image to find the copyright holder. :)
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You did the right thing by removing it right away. I just always like to take a stroll though the article history to see if there was an image that it can be replaced with. That way, I tend to avoid an edit-war with people trying to restore the copyright violation.—Kww(talk) 16:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. I followed this edit to the article yesterday and assumed that we didn't have one, since they replaced a placeholder image. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 16:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Playground (Lindsay Lohan song)

As I was going to mention on the AfD, perhaps a redirect to Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) is a solution? CTJF83Talk 22:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right of course. I tried a redirect, was reverted, wanted to bring it to a discussion, noticed that it had already been discussed, and stupidly G4ed it instead, which I now undid again and redirected, with a proper edit summary and hidden comment, which is what I wanted to do in the first place. Thanks for your note. :)
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good solurion until more on the song is available. The rolling stone article (http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/06/26/lindsay-lohan-plots-third-album/) seems enough to me to verify this as a future release. --neon white talk 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, and I don't doubt that it's true. It just fails WP:MUSIC#Songs and should be a part of the parent album article. --Amalthea^Talk 22:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad we got it sorted out, Amalthea. Neon white, we aren't doubting it is a future song, just have no information the soung, therefore it shouldn't have a page, til we have more info. CTJF83Talk 22:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi TPH
I see that my noise at AfD didn't go unnoticed, and that you removed the backlinks to Playground (Lindsay Lohan song). I'm not quite sure about that, I think that those links were useful, since we do have some information about the song at the redirect behind it. Would you mind if I restored those (except the self-redirect at the album article)?
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 23:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, you can go ahead and restore the links. I figured they were redundant since the page had been redirected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks! --Amalthea^Talk 23:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Engrish

Thank you for explaining. I'm new but learning! StewartNetAddict (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Circus cover

Look at it closely. Look over at the left side, where you see the hinge line. If the cover were where it's supposed to be, the cover would be next to the top of the hinge line. Instead, you have the full depth hinge line in 'front of the image. Note also how the image goes through the entire CD: real CDs have a solid section left of the hinge, and the image is all to the right.

It's possible that this is a real image that someone made look fake by photoshopping it onto a CD box, but it's an image photoshopped onto a CD box.

I like looking for these things. I spend a lot of time at www.photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com ... a fun little site.—Kww(talk) 03:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)