User talk:Kww/04022009

Who needs an archive when you can just look here?Kww (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come Back To Me

I was wondering...I found a ton of information about Come Back To Me, Say OK and Sneakernight. I wanted to put it on the album page but it would ruin the page. So I wanted to ask you if you could tell me how to make a discussion if Hudgens' singles would have their own pages since I got tons of information.Kikkokalabud (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not stop editing the UNC-CH page until I'm dead

So let's work this out in good faith and help each other understand our editing differences. 128.103.142.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UNC-CH Page

Hi, I tried taking the material out once and resolve it on the dispute page. It was added back immediately. I see your from NC. Perhaps you're too closely related to the material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holla213 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after reading the discussion page, I agreed with Holla213. It seems the edits were sensible, verifiable, and in good faith. They definitely were accurate and concise. I changed them back. If you have any questions, let's please take it to the discussion page. Recardoz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey, no problem! Thanks for checking!Recardoz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me why you edited without going to the discussion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.142.23 (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I used proper sources. You need to use the proper discussion page before you undo. You're the one who told me that when people take stuff of the page, it stays off until it's discussed. I will continue editing as a good wikipedian. If necessary, I will get Jimbo Whales and the Berkman Center involved as they are here on campus. Thanks. 128.103.142.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, kww. we need to get a consensus on the issues because i'm not leaving wikipedia and neither are you. so the page will be edited repeatedly until we figure something out--so let's work it out in good faith. 128.103.142.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan's Album AFD

I was originally intended to delete it, but there was a bit of improvement (although no quite enough) and some have suggested a merge so i've though of leaving it open for another 12-24 hours. Although no one else seem to have hoped in the keep bandwagon since yesterday. So it will be deleted shortly and if anyone wants some merging or to be userfied then can contact me.--JForget 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually merged some of the content into the main article.--JForget 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

If you haven't noticed, two of the members have started votes for topic bans on both of us. Once again, they seem to be completely ignoring the actual issues. I can technically understand myself using their logic, but I don't know why you're included. I don't know what you're going to do, but I won't be around for a few days. If you get a chance, e-mail me if anything changes. TTN (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well for what it's worth, I disagree with the above ban and would have jumped into the arbitration myself had I known about it. Reason I say "for what it's worth" is because it seems everything comes down to the voting process and mine seems invalid. Never the less I'll voice an opinion in some form then just return to working on Eevee and hope the best for ya.*shrugs*--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, I certainly disagree with essentially every word you have ever said about policy for articles on fiction, but banning you from them is a misapplication of anger that may be justified with respect to other people, & I've commented to that effect at the Arb discussion. DGG (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least it seems you're out of the line of fire now. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About The Brad Pitt

Noted dude... Fleurbutterfly 20:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Dion

If that's the case, would an article RFC convince him? Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, I know you didn't mean it that way but your note to me does recall this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Daniel Case's page

I'm not going to raise a big stink about it, but just would like to point out that Journalist has been edit-warring a bad change into the article for a couple of days, with his change being reverted by multiple editors. He jammed it in one last time, requested protection, and you complied. Hopefully, spending three days finding out that no one agrees with him will make him understand that he, and he alone, believes that US record sales are unimportant for Canadian artists. He might have learned not to edit war a little faster if you had given him a stern warning and blocked him the next time he reverted his change in. Kww (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Kww, you need to assume good faith, as I have done with you. I have not been edit warring a bad change, but have simply reverted a change that I believe is unsuitable in the lead (with the reasons explained on the talk page). Frankly, the only ones who disagree are you, the editor who first placed the info into the article, and a couple IPs that may belong to either/both you you. I never said that US sales were unimportant, I said that it shouldn't take precedence over everything. And the protection of the article wasn't a tactical move. You changed in shortly after I edited it, and I change it back, realized that we may have both violated 3RR, and notified both you and a third party (I could have really been unfair and abusive and block the article myself, but decided against it). And lastly, as you are as guilty of "edit warring" as I am, a stern warning and a block may also be warranted for you.

Daniel, I think that we should go to mediation and/or RFC. Orane (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow ... you claim that I didn't assume good faith, and you accuse me of IP sockpuppetry in the same breath? Me, another editor, and two IPs are four editors against one. Normally, most of us call that "consensus". Kww (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, would an article RFC convince him? Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if he's going to assume that anyone that opposes him is an IP sockpuppet of mine. His response here doesn't encourage me to believe that he understands that he has taken a solitary position unsupported by any other editor.Kww (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever say that you deliberately logged off your account to make the edits? No, I said it may belong to any or both of you (if an IP suddenly starts making an edit that both of you have started to push into the article, it's a very reasonable assumption). And no, we don't call that consensus for the very fact that it's too few people: You, another account that has made about 30 edits to Wikipedia, and two IPs that have hardly edited Wikipedia. Actually, the fact that I may be alone in this doesn't mean I'm wrong, and it in no way puts me in a disadvantage. Wikipeia isn't a democracy; people won't simply get their way by voting "for" or "against" a point, or by outnumbering others.

Also, do me a favour: we're both adults here. Stop acting so childish, stop patronizing, and stop jumping to spurious conclusions about me and about the situation. Orane (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, I know you didn't mean it that way but your note to me does recall this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, which is why raising any kind of fuss is inappropriate.Kww (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion requested

I have listed this dispute at WP:3O, since it is primarily between two people. Daniel Case (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also put it up as an RFC at the Canadians' noticeboard. Hopefully this will attract enough editors to establish a consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bundchen image

Thanks for the heads up - blocked. Neıl 龱 10:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Inquiry from me as well

Re: this. Are you referring to the general warning, or are you under the impression that I have been specifically named at some point? The only Arbcom case I have ever been a party to was as a complainant in the Sadi Carnot case.Kww (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kww. Yes I have no doubt that you have been instructed and warned a couple of months ago. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understood the general warning to apply to all. Your phrasing in your vote made it sound as if you were thinking of something aimed specifically at me.

Certainly wish I could understand why discussing the appropriate way to treat the creation of articles that violate policy is being considered an "attempt to inflame the situation." I suppose it has something to do with our views being diametrically opposed ... I consider actions like undoing the redirects that were in place before the arbcom freeze, creating ANI and Arbcom reports on people that have not violated the terms of their Arbcom sanctions, and threatening to perform mass unredirection of articles that still don't pass to be attempts to inflame the situation. I hold a similar opinion towards admins that have stretched the interpretations of sanctions beyond the breaking point, and towards admins that believe that "short blocks up to a week" can be interpreted as "two week blocks".

I've been in favor of maintaining status quo on the existing articles, neither creating new redirects or undoing redirects unless the article was repaired prior to undoing the redirect. I do feel, and thought that I was free to state as much in policy discussions, that editors that repeatedly create articles on fictional topics that have no third-party sourcing should be treated to a succession of stiffer and stiffer warnings followed up by blocks, i.e., treated as we treat any other disruptive editors or vandals. It would certainly solve the underlying problem more effectively than anything that has been tried to date.Kww (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in question suffer a lot because of the opposing views and there is no doubt that you and TTN are more responsible than others in this mess. Topics bans are for the best of anyone feeling it is too complicated to remain patient enough when dealing with difficult situations. It is for the best of the general atmosphere. There are really plenty of areas where your actions may be useful, but not here - at least for the moment. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Topics bans are for the best of anyone feeling it is too complicated to remain patient enough when dealing with difficult situations.", I'm sorry, but arbcom is not the one dealing with these situations, and you guys shouldn't be making these kinds of assumptions. Arbcom is making very uninformed decisions in relation to our case.

We were making progress in how TTN handles things, and we asked for clarification, because Lord knows the guy isn't going to be perfect over night. The only reason TTN got blocked or had an ANI thread in these last few weeks was because arbcom ignored our request. It was sitting there for so long that we went and made a second one. TTN told you guys on May 4th that he would do exactly what you told him to do, and he told you that he wasn't clear on several issues and wanted help.

He gets two blocks in gray areas, pleads for clarification both times, and you guys jump out of your chairs to do a total topical ban. Kirill fired off those proposals with bad assumptions on everyone (including myself, who he was dead wrong about), and with a hot head. The proposed topical ban for Kww should be a huge red flag to Kirill's laps in judgement there.

This last block, especially, needs to be clarified, regardless if TTN gets a topical ban or not. The only reason TTN got blocked was because he started a thread, rather than replied to an existing one, that was to a notice board in the project namespace (so basically he wouldn't have gotten blocked for starting a thread in the user name space). Several of us, including those on opposing extremes of the debate, were under the impression that he was simply restricted to direct action, and that he was not only allowed to discuss, but was encouraged to do so. Even if TTN's ideas in discussion were flawed, his participation in those discussions would help him understand why. He wasn't being disruptive at all in those discussions, and no one was even getting worked up. It was not until days later, after (and because of) the block did things turn heated. So why is it that this action has lead to a topical ban?

Can you not understand our honest confusion here? -- Ned Scott 05:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headstrong

Hi! Kww, I want to ask you please to control the article Headstrong of Ashley Tisdale, since some users have begun for several days to erase a lot of information and someone without any motive, for example the covers, date of singles, charts, information that my brother wrote, i feel badly because curiously both users who erase the info are fans of Brenda Song, and this relates that my brother 2 days ago I erase a few false charts of this person, then I think that these users in vindictive form begin to do these damages in Ashley's articles, ask you please to take measurements with regard to these.

My brother was blocked of wikipedia only for trying to save the information that with a lot of effort he wrote, always he was hanging of false information erased that other users ponian in these articles and now it seems to me that it is unjust that for trying to save the article is blocked, I ask you to do something with regard to this. Please. Now I me encarge of placing something of the former information that this in the article but deseguro, these persons were managing to cause damages. Ojala this is taken responsibly since I for my part am not playing, Thank you very much.

My english forgives, is a bit basic. Fotesh (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was filled with fake references and fake positons the editor who did that was blocked for not responding to edits and submitting fake references and text even soemtimes the user who is by the way dienaked, reverted and posted non free images not to mention reverting most of the brenda song article and posting more fake references. In that result dienaked was blocked. That user received several warnings about that article. I have discussed this with other admins and that resulted to a block towards dienaked. And now fans are reverting the edits because they think it is not fair. Well hiw about reveiving the article first. It took me 2 hours for reveiving and over 30 mintutes for removing false references and fake chart postions not too mention 3 kiloybytes of trivia and fake sales. Most of the references were from fansites or forums which is not exceptable. Dienaked was blocked in that result. I am not a Brenda Song fan that is categorizing a trusted user as a strategy. Fotesh is now accusing me of being a vandellism user, he or she does not know why and seems to stick to the conspiracy theories made by Dienaked. I doubt that Dienaked is not connected with Fotesh. Your so called brother was blocked for removing text with no reason given, submitting fake references and text eg fake chart positions and then vandellising several pages after being given several warnings. And doubt that you arent Dienaked.

I have warned several admins on wikipedia about this and after that they blocked Dienaked. I have removed the text that was trivia, fake or fan based from the article with reasons given in the history page while Fotesh just reverting my edit with no reasons and started accusing me of being a crazy brenda song fan rekated with some ip address when my real ip is 81.155.226.185 and here is proof. [1]

Have you even considered looking at the references posted in the old revision. They were all forums and fansites, and some of them were in different languages i translated the brazil newspaper it does not even mention headstrong's sales. They are fake and the user was blocked. Some of the text was just downright fake claiming that the album sold over 1 million and adding a fansite reference as a source. And then adding a billboard best album award reference. And the international sales links were forums in some areas and they did not even mention the album's sales/ And in soem cases we had refereneces that did not say anything about the album or included any thing about it. Dienaked though he could get away with posting fake references. And the critical reception was very fan based. Some of the reviews were made by fans and had several typos and they were not referenced and that is why we removed them and then we had about two referneced that stayed. I doubt that this user isnt Dienaked sinc ethe spelling errors, timing and opinions are exaclty the same. IntoCreativeJan (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not putting my side, Dienaked and Fotesh are connected and Dienaked was blocked for reverting my edits, submitting fake references and text and then removing large amounts of text without any reason and now his so - called sister is defending him and reverting my edits. Dienaked was blocked for doing that, he/she was vandellising and submitting fake references and text not to mention uploading non free images for that article. The images that were non free are now set for deletion. There arent any sides this is a matter of vandellism and inaccuracy made in that article. The article is now fine not a mess. I made sure that everything is accurate well nearly everything. The Brazil one about sales may not be accurate. But the reast is very accurate. That issue was not the only problem because Dienaked also submitting befor ebeing blocked a fansite link in the external link and i am quite surprised that users can get away with doing all of that and still get defended or may be sockpuppets there is a high possibility that Dienaked and Fotesh are sockpuppets or may be just relaitives like what Fotesh claims. IntoCreativeJan (talk) 2:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good thank you very much undoubtedly ... this user who has begun to edit the article has erased things that are not necessary, as charts and covers! Having checked the record is obvious his intention of causing damages, I speak normally in Spanish thank you for your response, which I do not understand is because he erases the information that wrote my brother, I understand some sources but it can be repaired, and I comprometemerme to looking for other sources but because he erases the covers or the record of the singles? Fotesh (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not release the singles. The singles were repeated two times and the target cover was exacltly like the original cover. So i did not earease your brothers information. If i did that with no reason i would be blocked like your broter. Do you ever wonder why you brother got blocked. For god sake. He got blocked for submitting fake references hot about looking at those references and the fake chart positions and sales, anotehr note how about looking at that. And he also submitted a fan site reference for god sake fan site references are not reliable they are fan based and the critical reviewes were fan based with typos and by the way that fan site exernal link was against wikipedia rules. DO you not understand what i am saying. Seems like another sockpuppet case.IntoCreativeJan (talk) 3:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

no is exactly like the original, change the color in the "HEADSTRONG" and you erased history dates release of teh singles in the worlwide why?... and yes some sales are fake but i removing but the sources i can add today but stop off deleted please!!! Leave me to contribute!!! Please!!!!!!! you erased the style that i put in ashley's template that after your it you put in template of brenda .. I can to deduce that you erased only to place it in brenda .. because your you are not blocked if she was a person so little objective. Fotesh (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not erease the history dates they were repeated in a seperate sectio, the teplate has broken links and had other songs which was not needed and that image was exactly the same target is not a internation publication or country which made is very illusive and your brothers edits were vandellism and i did not place anything ob brenda's that style was not ahsley's style it was a worlwide template style not by your brother. And discussion is over. If you revert my edits again, it may lead to another block. I have discussed this with other admins. the discussion is over revetring my work will be vandellism and would result to a block. This is your final warning.IntoCreativeJan (talk) 3:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: One more question

Your quote above anyone feeling it is too complicated to remain patient enough when dealing with difficult situations confuses me, and I really would like clarification as to why you think I should be forced to basically stop editing for 6 months (note that the topic ban is not over fiction, it is over all forms of art: films, movies, TV, music, characters, and by easy extension, actors and actresses, and includes any comments, which would include policy relating to them ... that's a huge swath of the encyclopedia). When have I shown signs of impatience? I discuss policy (including policy about fiction), and I try to maintain the status quo on existing redirects until there is a stable policy that says that the underlying articles are permissible or not. I protested when admins made interpretations of sanctions that could not be justified under the text of the sanctions, and I protested when people brought complaints to Arbcom that seemed to be for the purpose of getting their opponents blocked or banned, as opposed to being sincere reports of actual violations. At what point did I show signs of impatience?

I've just opined on the matter here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshop vandelism

How the hell do you get to that conclusion??? Alotbsol (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a real candid picture taken by a paparazzi. It is in a lot of celeb web sites. It is, of course, not a free use picture and I tagged it as a copyvio on commons. --NrDg 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale

Please don't remove information from this profile. It has been sourced and it an evolving event. This is against Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawsheard (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used so far are unreliable and don't meet the needs of WP:BLP. The information was properly removed as required by wiki policy. --NrDg 16:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mickey Mouse Club

Removing sourced information goes against Wiki policy. The sources meet EVERY Wiki guidline for viable and competant information. The sources cited were Official Disney publications. They are independant, reliable and official. To say that an "uninterested" editor has to author the information is ludacris. That goes completely against the purpose of Wiki in general. Editors write about what they are interested in. Please assume good faith. Sources were asked for and provided. It is half assed, and completely against Wiki policy to delete sourced information due to a lack of motivation to verify the sources. Other editors and admins are getting involved.

Skyler Morgan (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

~~Warning~~

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Also Zachary Jaydon was a cast member on The Mickey Mouse Club. Please do not revert/ delete well sourced information as you may be blocked. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I must apologize for what i said earlier. In all fairness I am oblivious to the Mickey Mouse Club. I know very little on it. www.imdb.com is like wikipedia. Anyone can edit it. Therefore not making it a reliable source, so therefore you had every right to delete it. Once i again i apologize for that. If user:TragedyStriker has violated the WP:3RR then i strongly suggest you report him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. If he is using two accounts, this means he is violation WP:SOCK. So i also strongly suggest you report him for committing sock puppetry (having more than one account) at WP:ANI. Sorry for any convince, he just complained to me about you. I don't know why. Ive never talked to him before. He just complained about you to me. I'm not even an administrator lol. So I just thought I'll act the "good guy" and place a warning lol. Anyway report him for what i have said and this should put an end to his inconvenience. ;) 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

haha. its annoying lol. Sorry anyway, he made out to me that he was the good guy and that you were that bad guy. Now i know thats the other way round. Anyway peace friend ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know I won't do it any more.

From Anthonyrp [16th July 2008] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyrp (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Jaydon

Hi. I saw you opened an ANI on Zachary Jaydon and his claims of being on MMC and I thought I'd let you know awhile back, I attempted to verify this info and came up with nothing. As you stated in the ANI, there is nothing online (outside of user driven websites) that indicate he was ever on the show (the only thing I did find was an interesting link that seems to debunk this claim although it's not official or even reliable). I'm not sure what to make of the references he provided because I don't have the magazine, but after having attempted to find any confirmation of this when the web is pretty full of MMC cast member info, I'd say the information is dubious at best and should probably not be included until someone can at least verify the sources Jaydon provided. IMHO, it's not assuming bad faith if you're truly questioning the claims and the sources can't be verified. Hope this helps a bit. Pinkadelica 07:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry to revert you there but the reference is actually there, although I don't think it's significant enough to change anything. The author told me on my talk page that he's working on scanning some articles that prove this is true - so we'll have to review those soon too. BradV 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the following link:

http://zacharyjaydonwiki.blogspot.com/

I am continuing to upload additional scans. This will be at the very least, a show of good faith, and a non-refutable proof of at least a portion of the information in question. Thank you. Skyler Morgan (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks. And good work. Its annoying to even deal with these types people I know! But you did more then I ever could :) --Thegingerone (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Jaydon

As someone who is quite biased in this matter, having started the AFD, I would nevertheless say no to a block, unless he starts up again. It's now clear (or should be) that such editing is unacceptable. Neıl 龱 14:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Images on your userpage

Sorry, I only kept for the use of {{double image}} template. I´ve already changed the images.
And sorry about Gisele' image in the Model article, I didn´t know. Caiaffa (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie's new album source

http://cedtavious-r.blogspot.com/2008/03/cassie-connecticut-fever-album-cover.html

There's the album cover, confirming the title.

?

Are you allowed to edit Bleep? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur

I hate you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.66.202 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official languages of Netherlands Antilles

Could you give sources to your edition [2]. According to Department of Economic & Labour Affairs of Bonaire [3] and the Official Bonaire Tourism Site [4] official language on Bonaire is only Dutch, according to Saba's Tourist Bureau [5] Dutch is only official language on Saba, according to Sint Eustatius Tourist Office [6] Dutch is only official language and according to Sint Maarten Tourist Bureau [7] Dutch is only official language. According to these sources English and Papiamentu aren't official languages. Aotearoa from Poland (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, still I don't know if English and Papiamentu are countrywide official languages, or there're official only in specific islands. Your first source [8] said: "This decision has acknowledged Papiamento as the language of the islands of Curaçao and Bonaire, and English for the Windward Islands" - in my opinion this is mean that English is official only in Saba, Sint Eustatius and Sint Maartin and Papiamentu is official in Bonaire and Curaçao. In other sources there aren't unambiguous informations about official status of these languages. In addition, some sources said, that English was introduced before Papiamentu ([9], [10], [11]). I think, the best way is to find official act about languages of Netherlands Antilles, and check status of English and Papiamentu, and find date of introducing English as an official language. Aotearoa from Poland (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new user page?

Oh i see you edited your user page... made it much shorter than last i saw it.

was it because of that nice remark i made?

Zbeeblebrox278 (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh and i took the liberty of telling Redfarmer i am here on wikipedia so you don't have to tell him.

Zbeeblebrox278 (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on dude...

Dude, please man.

I know i used my puppet account "Leonhart" to say some pretty nasty things... but that is all over now man. i have changed, and now i want to help the wiki i was bashing people on. i know using a puppet account was wrong.

Lets just build this wiki together, huh?

Zbeeblebrox278 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Can you tell how was performing photos of Beyonce was added. I want to know what content was it added and what was it's license. Staticj (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem

It happens to us all at some point, don't worry about it. -Toon⁰⁵ 21:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whatever

yeah yeah ....like whatever.

Blocked

Thank you for your help in resolving my being blocked issue. 71.141.114.187 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 Revert Rule

Hi. This is just a friendly warning that, should you revert another non-vandalism edit on Zach Efron before 13.20 2nd July, you would be violating the 3 Revert Rule, and could be blocked. I notice that you have made seven reverts to the article today, although most are exceptions, such as reverting vandalism. The conflict regarding changing of relationship status to "is" is not considered vandalism, and would be considered Edit Warring, and you could be blocked. Consider discussing the issue on the talk page, in a hope to resolve the dispute. It might also be useful to consider requesting page protection. Just a friendly reminder. -Toon⁰⁵ 22:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have been noticing this conflict on my watchlist for a while. I guess it's inevitible with a subject as teen-focussed and visible as this guy. I have requested indefinite page protection, because quite frankly the vandalism and idiotic edits by ips is getting a tad ridiculous. -Toon⁰⁵ 23:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the page has been indefinitely semi-protected, should calm things down. -Toon⁰⁵ 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just reminding you, that your getting close to 3 reverts on User:Staticj's page. 4.154.5.253 (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War on Headstrong article

Look. There's some people deleting referenced and important informations (like chart performances for example) from that page as a vandalism. And I only revert the vandalisms. One week ago, one member with ten accounts was deleting the same kind of informations in that page (referenced and important). Voices4ever 15:50 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I put my opinion on article's talk page. But knows read that, I think. Well, I'm sad that are some people that wants deleting ONLY Ashley informations. There's A LOT OF albums's article on Wikipedia with the same kind of information and it still in their articles. Voices4ever 16:00 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Look. I will re-add that informations. I send a message to that IP asking why him deleted that information and he just deleted my message, without aswer to me. All the informations that I want to re-add are referenced. Voices4ever 15:50 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He is a Ashley hater. He is deleting for exemple, referenced chart performances and re-releases informations for example. I wants to know why he delets that informations, because what him say in any edits that he did is not correct. All the things that him deleted was referenced. Voices4ever 15:50 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the problem. If the album charted in that country some day and the site doesn't have an archive, we cannot prove in the future. Ok, I agree with the IP in deleting that chart performances, alright. But I don't know why he removed re-releases (referenced to Amazon and AshleyMusic - oficial music site) and target edition, for example. Voices4ever 17:35 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that "re-releases" are "special editions", with some changes in standard tracklist. And that informations have references to Amazon and AshleyMusic - oficial Ashley music site. Voices4ever 17:40 2 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the "re-releases" are "special editions" were deleted, just merged for being written in a very non professional of factorial way which is not suitable for wikipedia. So you cans top your accusations and pondering. The references which were removed because it did not mention the songs. And you keep on reverting these edits that told you why it has been removed. And second of all, you are accusing and calling every edit that you do not agree on as vandellism which is not up to you to decide on which is the edit is vadellism. And if there is a reason for edit wars to happen, it is becuase you revert, add and accuse others with no detailed explanation. Cleanup you attitude and i know that this is not any of my business. But it is highly worthy to listen to. And the re releases was not deleted just merged (which means put in a differnt section). And you again added references that did not mention the album with out a reason on the history page. How about stating why you added that piece????

If you agree so much with my chart edits then why do you keep on reverting it??? Please answer. And why are you going behind to a Kww and bashing the IP user with accusation of being a Ashley hater for the 15th time. You can not bash and accuse several IP accounts. And proclaim them as He. And how can you accuse IP accounts of being multiple??? That is impossible unless the IP is a FBI worker or agent. And why do you keep on suggesting on people who disagree with your edits to be a hater or vandelliser. Are you releated to Headstrong Nieva, Triping, Dienaked and Molisda because your edits seems exactly alike and the same. With the same use of "delecting" when the word needed is deleting and the same history page acticities like editing the same songs and the same amount of deletion to the album V by Vanessa Hudgens and chart activity in none Ashley related pages.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.12.33 (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official Charts

Can you aswer a thing? All the Billboard charts are considerate as official charts? If not, there's a list where I can check the official charts? Thanks. Voices4ever 17:46 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No Billboard other charts are not internationally official. The oage sthat do include them need ome cleanup work. Of it is so international and official then how come, you do nto feature them in teh discography page and how come they are not featured at AUcharts.com. Please care to explain. Read the wikipedia guidelines and then start reverting and accusing, care to bash another IP???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.12.33 (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hello there, you may recall I was mistakenly blocked from editing the other day, due to suspected vandalism. I'm now asking if you can tell me how one goes about alerting or contacting a Wikipedia administrator of vandalism being done by another editor. Specifically, in this instance, IP 193.120.116.178 (please see my history for my reverts of vandalism by this user done today). As you will see, this user has a long history of vandalism, and I am concerned that this user will continue to vandalize Wikipedia. As such, in the future, I would like to be able to alert an administrator when this activity is taking place, if you can advise me of how to do this.

Further . . . I sent a message to this user stating "I have requested that you be permanently blocked from ever editing Wikipedia pages, due to your destructive and juvenile vandalism of pages. Until such time as you are permanently blocked, I will monitor each and every edit you make, and revert said edits unless you immediately provide verifiable reference source to justify your edits." This user has just left a message on my talk page as follows: My Worthy Foe - I accept your challenge. Give me a few moments and then the games will begin. 193.120.116.178 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC). Thank you in advance for your reply. 71.141.114.187 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why do you undo my edit when you know I was right. User:Staticj is not a sockpuppet and I believing you are siding with User:Jayron32 because you are a sockpuppet of User:Jayron32. Now I am not trying to start nothing but you sent User:Jayron32 a message so it would not make it look obvious. I will be watching both you and see how many things you both decide on together. How come you do not ask any other user. 4.154.5.253 (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to start an edit war. I am right and you do not want anyone else to see my comment. 4.154.5.253 (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey

My apoligies if may edit came across as badly sources opionated verbiage. This was not my intention at all. However, in my defence I was simply stated an apparent fact to which there was already sufficient supporting evidence from other referenced sections of the text. Please cease undoing this edit unless you find it to be an untruth after extending and seeking knowledge on the topic yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulmke (talk • contribs) 02:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I'm planning to push Natalee Holloway for Today's Featured Article on October 21, which would be (or is) her 22nd birthday. They are instituting a bonus point in the evaluation process if the requestor is both a primary contributor to the article and has never been a primary contributor to a TFA article. Would you qualify? I don't because of my involvement with the article on the Borat movie, which was TFA last year.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Ashley Tisdale

Funny you should ask, I just left a final warning on the User's Talk Page. S/he seems to have a history of disruptive edits to articles relating to her. - eo (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had the Tisdale discog on my watchlist from ages ago when some people created a big, elaborate crufty page out of it. Unfortunately it never ends and gets exhausting sometimes. I'm currently trying to deal with one of these people myself. - eo (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't have a good answer on the Tisdale pages. Although much of Triping's content seems poorly sourced and written, the reduced version (on some of the articles) is missing some valid content. On the discography page, since part of the change involves the peak positions, the article will need a proper fact-check. Given past history that any work on those articles gets reverted multiple times, that expectation will discourage most people working on the article. Gimmetrow 21:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.

i don't really get what you're talking about...?

anyway, that contribution wasn't me, it was someone else on my account, i fixed it though... i think, haha.

Melanie (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbling Under Hot 100 charts

Yeah, I understood when Gimmetrow explain in the first time. I just don't understand why you send the message to me. If I added this chart in some page, sorry, it must be a mistake. Thanks. ((Voices4ever) 19:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no problem. Mistakes happen sometimes. Anyway, thanks to be patient and explain to me again it. (Voices4ever) 19:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: He Said She Said

Yeah, I've noticed all these edit wars in the Ashley Tisdale articles; inaccurate genres, component charts, fannish statements... There was another load of edit wars in He Said She Said (song) before I could check the edit history, but thanks for taking notice of my edits anyway. Keep up the good work! Funk Junkie (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Triping

I've tagged a bunch of the IP addresses as socks. If you find any more, please go ahead and tag them also with {{IPsock|1=Triping}}. If this continues we'll request a checkuser and if necessary, start blocking. - eo (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a final warning again as the last one I left was two days ago. I agree with you, my patience is running low with this user - now that we see that IPs are being used abusively I'll be keeping a close eye on it. - eo (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performances - Question

Hey, I have a question. Can you explain me? Well, in Ashley's articles all the chart performances must be referenced (and the peak must appears in the reference). But if we look others singles article, there's a LOT of unreferenced chart performances and no one removes it. Why only Ashley's must be referenced? Sorry for the incovenient. (Voices4ever) 15:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneakernight

Hey, do you know why "Sneakernight", a single by Vanessa Hudgens, doesn't has an article yet? Thanks. (Voices4ever) 17:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understood. But now the single was released, charted on Billboard and has a music video. It's not enough yet? Thanks. (Voices4ever) 17:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. But, for example, Say Ok are a notable article? There's practily any information in that article...If Say Ok has an article, I think that Sneakernight should has one too. Or redirect both or keep both, it's my opinion. Thanks. (Voices4ever) 17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I nominated Say Ok for deletion. Please, comment your opinion in the discussion page. (Voices4ever) 18:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know when the discussion will end? Thanks. (Voices4ever) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why did you nominate Say Ok for deletion? Kikkokalabud (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tila Tequila

"Ethnicity doesn't go into the lead unless related to her notability." Really? I'm sure that's why Kaila Yu, Natasha Yi, Rosalind Chao, and pretty much every other Asian-American celebrity you can think of all have their ethnic backgrounds right there in the first paragraph of the article. Lady Galaxy 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Identified

Actually Articles found around the internet HAVE named her album a disappointment, bomb and a flop. Its not my opinion. Clana4life55

I posted the link calling Vanessa's album a bomb and a disappointment and you still deleted it. Like it or not her album was a disappointment. Clana4life55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clana4life55 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is an opinion from a user, technically, it really isn't encyclopedia material —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.154.149 (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the Bleep Do We Know

Hi. Thanks for the message, I see where your concern is. However, I really don't think it's a good idea to protect articles for such lengthy periods of time without giving unprotection a chance. I will try to keep a close eye on the article, and will protect again and/or use blocks should it become necessary. Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the tip. I'll bear that in mind!

From Anthonyrp [16th July 2008] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyrp (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD notification for Category:Metrosexual people

The related Category:Metrosexual people has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

NEVER DELETE MY COMMENTS AGAIN

Let's be perfectly clear ... deleting comments from other editors, and modifying comments by other editors, is completely unacceptable behaviour. Do not repeat it.
Kww (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DON'T BUTT IN WHERE YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS That's the easy way for you to ensure that your unhelpful comments that are not useful won't be deleted. If you don't want your comments to be edited or deleted, you are in the wrong place. Please do not leave comments on my talk page. Is that clear enough for you?

Ram.samartha (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stairway started this mess?

Stairway To Heaven happens to be my favorite song. The backwards message doesn't bother me and it shouldn't bother you because the song is a staple in music history and will be so for a long time. 71.253.97.230 (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say Ok

Well, it's one week later when I'm nominated Say Ok for deletion. The discussion will ends today? Or I have to end the discussion? Thanks for the help. (Voices4ever) 13:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Voices4ever 13:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Mary, Mother of God.

My God, have I really been away from Wikipedia so long it has become de rigeur to begin prepare for Arbcom cases from the first sign of a dispute? What on earth happened to collaborative editing? Have we abandoned discussing our differences on talk pages now, we get right down to evidence gathering and ass-covering? All I've done is tried to add a paragraph, with three references from high-quality sources, to an article and I have been warned of 3RR, threatened with a block and told I have never read WP:BLP! No wonder people keep leaving. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Hudgens

Looks like a good merge job to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one thing — the chart positions are for the albums, right? You might want to specify that. You might also want to fix the bare link to the Amazon.jp page, it's a looooooooooong link and it's dangling out over the infobox. Ten Pound ~~Hammer~~ Farfel and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 01:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nicole Wray discography

Check the page. Usercreate (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: CSD on Burning Up Tour

I think the case for speedy-deletion is ambiguous in this case. The deletion discussion was just recently discussed at DRV and was closed as "deletion endorsed but no prejudice against recreation a newer and better article". Personally, I think the recreated version was almost exactly the same as the deleted one but there were a few differences. This might have to go to AfD to confirm that it's still an inappropriate topic. Rossami (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notability of places

Just to let you know I've replied to your comment here: [[12]]. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your edit comment, I think you've completely misunderstood Sebwite's edits - could you have a look again. His aim was to split the guideline into two, not remove the sections AndrewRT(Talk) 13:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability - Places

As someone who has contributed to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Geographic_locations), I would appreciate your views on this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Geographic_locations)#Using_an_Atlas_as_a_source_for_notability. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 13:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About inherent notability

I know you have pointed out that nothing is inherently notable. I understand your points. The thing is, the theory behind inherent notability is that anything contained within a certain subject would surely have coverage by multiple, reliable, independent sources, so even if one cannot locate it oneself, notability can be assumed by simply proving its mere existence.

If you look at the essay Wikipedia:Notability (geography), the author has done a good job at explaining how geographic locations can be notable regardless. Come to think of it yourself, and almost any official place on earth will be mentioned regularly in newspapers and other media at the very least.

Some other subjects that may be inherently notable are livings things (animals, plants, etc.), elected officials, professional athletes, etc. Though many articles on them are currently stubs, any that are proposed for deletion will almost always survive. The same is true for places listed in atlases.

The only types of places that are really not notable are those that are nothing more than commercially recognized, like apartment complexes, townhouse developments, and business parks. Sebwite (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That essay is used as an excuse for sloppy editing and article creation. Article creation should always be done in order ... find sources, summarize sources, write article. People attempt to use the concepts of inherent notability and inherited notability as a short-cut to allow them to write about their own personal interests, such as asteroids, stars, roads, television characters, etc., without doing the work of actually creating an encyclopedia: reading sources, analyzing them, and writing the summary. Nothing is inherently notable, and nothing inherits notability: each and every article must be sourced, and be able to demonstrate that it's information was derived from those sources, not from the opinions and beliefs of the author.
Kww (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amplifying ... the other thing that the concept of inherent notablity bypasses is that there are things that are simply unimportant. That's why WP:N requires a direct and detailed examination by multiple independent sources, because if no one else took the time, neither should we. Boven Bolivia is my favorite example: it's an abandoned farmhouse a few kilometers from my home. I had never heard it called by that name until someone decided it was inherently notable, and thus deserved an article. The problem is that there is absolutely nothing to say about it.
Kww (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what your feelings are about inherent notability. The fact is, the Wikipedia community as a whole has decided defacto to allow certain categories to be inherently notable. Some examples, as I mentioned are animal and plant species that are known to few, but that do exist. Many of the articles on them are stubs, yet they are around. AfDs on any of these generally result in keep.

I personally support the creation of such stubs. They may have been created by someone who knows little about something, but wants to inspire the creation of a full article in the future by just the right person who has further knowledge. Most of the time, there is information out there that meets WP:RS. Though the stub creator may not be familiar with it, the expanders may. I, myself, have created some stubs like that that have later been expanded, and likewise, expanded some previous stubs into full articles. This is a great way to get people to share their knowledge with the world. The reason why we have the stub concept is because Wikipedia is a work in progress. Wikipedia is not finished. An article need not be complete to qualify to be created.

True, there are some things that do not belong in an international encyclopedia. You cannot have an article on every run-of-the-mill person, corner store, or street. But a topic that is covered does not have to be something known to the majority of the world's population. As WP:N states, what makes something notable is information that is published. But no human being is familiar with 100% of the world's published information or where to find it. Those topics that are viewed as inherently notable are those that, based on the way things are, are guaranteed to have published information out there, even if the creator of a stub may not know where to find them. Sebwite (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite full protection?

Indefinite full protection for Celine Dion because you were locked in an edit war? Even though you were on the right side of the exchange, that's not an acceptable use of article protection, especially since you are far from an uninvolved admin with respect to that article.
Kww (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. My apologies. I've unpotected the article. Usually, I don't protect the article in cases like these. However, I approached the situation differently because this isn't simply an edit dispute where either of us could be right (like our dispute). I was reverting a change that conflicted with the attribution/citing sources policy, and I thought that this gave me more leverage. In any case, I was only planning to protect the article for a very short while. Orane (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Removing CSD tags

Yeah, you've got a point. Had he recreated the article multiple times, then it's clearly bad faith. But to block him over one creation of the article feels a little WP:BITEy, IMO. That's why I noted, then removed the listing after no immediate action on the editor's part. —C.Fred (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ya!

Hey there Kww! It's so nice to see you taking such good care of the Humanzee article. I smile every time I see your username showing up in association with the article on my watchlist. You know, I spoke with Oliver's caregivers a few weeks ago and he's still enjoying life, as much as an elderly and arthritic chimp accused of being a Humanzee for most of his life can. He's got a new cagemate, a gentle female and while he suffers from aches and pains associated with his mistreatment back when he was held at that lab, he's happy. A few months back, Primarily Primates merged with friends of Animals in an official manner and a big party was held for the Chimps. 80 pounds of fresh watermelon was trucked in and Oliver and his younger friskier friends had fun smashing them up and then eating them. I thought you might enjoy hearing that. Your hard work on this article over time has kept it from deteriorating into nonsense. Good job!LiPollis (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bass banjo photos

Hi Kww, I am just started to translate the article Bass banjo (actually your edits Bassjo was moved as article bassjo has been translated already) into German. I noticed that some illustrations you have added are not available on Commons although they are under a GNU public documentation license. This applies to both photographs of Gold Tone Banjos. Are there any particular reasons not to upload these images to Commons? Consindering the sheer number of images may I suggest to set up a Commons gallery? Thanks in advance for your answer. --Drahkrub (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale

Why Deleted my contribution of Discography by A. Tisdale 08:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But it is false? NOT! Everything what appears is real, not if you were realizing but before everything was erased in a edition war for Ashley's Hater, I believe that you should to give you the work of reading every and every phrase and before erase.

If we compare the article of videos that I wrote of Ashley is very similar to that of Britney, but because this it is not erased? And that of Ashley if?

Britney Spears videography?

This is very unjust, since the only thing that I want is to have ashley's article many complete, but I can't do it through the fault of anti-fans in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.82.229.76 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

190.4.12.5

This user has the exact same edit pattern as Editor652, exactly the same pages, but different numbers. Coincidence? Rsheptak (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

If you're going to make statements like this you should file a sock puppet report. Otherwise it's just baiting other editors. Toddst1 (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks!

—MearsMan ^talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for making this edit to Nikki Blonsky, it's pretty much perfect. =) I've been keeping an eye on the article, trying to keep details about the airport incident as neutral as possible, and the changes you made are certainly a great improvement. Cheers! —MearsMan ^talk 20:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Lovato (album)

Do you really think that's enough for a page now? I think it's still WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gomez

[13] The answer is that it's not simple trivia. It seems to be part of her image and mentioned in entertainment news on Fox[14] and E![15] among other places. Gimmetrow 05:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sneakernight

Whoops! Sorry about that. Sometimes we walk into hornets nests without knowing it. I protected Sneakernight. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was protected for about 30 seconds. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afd spam

Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink's fifth studio album. I have added (the newly released) confirmed release date and I have expanded the article and added sources. If you still feel the article needs to be deleted, no problem. However I would be grateful if you'd take a look. Regards, --Cameron * 16:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless articles and lies

Stop creating useless articles and lies. The sockpuppets have been gone, so you need to stop creating useless checkuser articles and blaming me for a being a sockpuppet. Did ever occur to you that I might be a user from the Nicole Wray Fanatics board. 4.154.3.202 (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get Back

I didn't say it wasn't a matter of public record. I said "find a source that highlights this connection". The point is that you are drawing attention to something even though the source we're using doesn't even mention the connection. Everyking (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Ok, thank you for your great facts. - User:Weirdo82

A Question

I am a fan of Angela Chang, so then I went to her Wikipedia page, and then I click on the photo which Claire Guo, Christine Fan, and her are recording the song. And I found out the creator of that image is Weirdo82, so I click on it and the talk page. So then I just saw it that he was blocked creating images, why? Well, I saw your name on the talk page so I want to ask you. I am a new user so yeah. And what are copyrighted images, like what's wrong with uploading them? Sorry, I just got lotta questions. (I went on the talk page again and the your talks are deleted, I don't know why.) User:Stupido222

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChampagneChroniKnightCap, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I offended you - it really wasn't my intention. I kind of go along with Stifle (see his User talk templates are useful essay). I didn't realise that this was a sock of a banned user, as the edit description didn't make it clear. There have been a few times recently when editors have been modifying comments on AfDs, and I guess I must have jumped to the conclusion (erroneously) that this was another of those times. Once again, please accept my apologies. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 12:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:JediLofty has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 12:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Stop Reverting my text

It would be appreciated if you stop removing my edits. I have billboard sources to prove them right as for iTunes, you need to get to check it out. 4.154.3.7 (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soccermeko range block

Just so you know--that IP is on the network of Level 3, a major backbone provider. Blueboy 96 15:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm--five out of 200,000 ... sounds like a two-month range block is worth the risk. Obviously it will have to be a soft block ... if you propose it on AN or ANI, I'll support it. Blueboy 96 17:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at AN started here. Blueboy 96 16:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetah Girls

There have been interruptions in The Cheetah Girls for the past week caused by two socket puppets Brianyau323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and another user called Aaronfrancois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am not 100 percent sure if they are socket puppets but their edits are exactly the same the only different is that Aaron actually deletes and reverts information with a edit summary but the other one just removes and reverts without any summaries. Brian has removed information several times from that page without any reason and the other user reasons it but he/she reverts the whole page, so the previous editor's work has been removed without a reason. And then the IP 81.158.67.134 and the user Gotttambeme start questioning why in their summaries and reverting the discography and the referenced introduction. And the reverting game never ends in that page. Can you please help. I starting sending last warning messages because this is not the first time this user has been received warning which led to a block. I know that it was wrong of me to send a full last warning but this is starting to get annoying.

And in the Cheetah Girls single pages the two users are always removing and reverting text. The Radio Disney positions were correct in the first place. The Top 30 chart is up to the users to vote for and request while the Top 3 is for the most downloads and requests. I also sent a warning for Brianyau323's IP address, there are so many different IP numbers it is very confusing. It is like Brianyau323's IP number changes daily and so do the names. There aren't any admins watching and editing the Cheetah Girl pages which is surprising. Meila909 Meila909 15:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comayagua99 v. all other Comayugua* accounts

I'm not sure that edit by Comayagua98 is necessarily relevant to the situation. The analogy would be, if a vandal camped on your name and started churning through User:Kww2, User:Kww3, etc., and your account got blocked as part of the process. It looks to me like Conayagua99 is a long-standing, unrelated account. Maybe I'm assuming too much good faith, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt until 99 proves otherwise to me.

At this point, I'm waiting to see if 99 makes an unblock request. If he doesn't, then it ceases to be an issue. If he does, then depending on how that develops, I may request checkuser. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's User:Weirdo82

I don't really know what you were talking about on my talk page, I don't know who is User:Weirdo82. Well, but still thanks for giving me the website. Thank you. Stupido222 (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hudgens singles

Hey Kww, I don't disagree with your redirects, I was just curious if I could be pointed to the AfDs, though. I'd just be interested in seeing what was discussed and I don't see anything useful in the "what links here" for the articles. Thanks, Metros (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Crap

Here you go:

Needless to say, there is a lot to clean up. - eo (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. StaticGull Talk 12:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Restoring false information and non-notable articles

Please stop putting in the single! You can put EP in TCG.

BUT, DO NOT put in Fuego!

Thank you Cheetahbrian (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey~

Sorry, My bad~

Brianyau323 (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But!

but Fuego Charts, and it is an official singles. and this song is the most improntant song of The Cheetah Girls!

15:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You're Right~

But The Cheetah Girls are very Popular, and many other singer, they make single articles (like Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus, etc.) and The Cheetah Girls have other single articles. Cheetahbrian (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK~

OK! You're right.

But I'll add more information on the single part~

Cheetahbrian (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I add some Information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCG_(album)#Fuego

P.S. Nice to meet you

Cheetahbrian (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...............

I cannot find any information, but I think it is TURE

Cheetahbrian (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK~

OK!

I gotta go. bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetahbrian (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetah Love

Is me again.

I want to ask why you redirect. Cheetahbrian (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a single. Cheetahbrian (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Dance Me If You Can and One World can have an article??

RfA

I don't quite understand the reasoning for your oppose vote. Have you looked at my answer to question 19? Everyking (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure our differences in interpreting notability are quite large, I don't see why that should reflect on your vote. I already pledged not to close any AfD where clear consensus didn't exist. Everyking (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I wouldn't do that and I wouldn't approve of any admin doing that. I'm willing to strengthen my pledge to promise not to close any AfD discussions at all, if that will reassure you (I wouldn't really intend on closing them anyway; I never closed any during my prior 2.5 years as an admin). Everyking (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I assure you that I support having a notability standard and I have always upheld the principle of notability. I'm sorry that you find my assurances insufficient. Everyking (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Lovato

I know someone who making a song article (Get Back)

I 'm going to help you :)

219.78.62.60 (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Singles infoboxes

I'm not sure if Wikipedia was a hard guideline on this, but I'd personally go for this version as a full single infobox sort of clutters the article. Hope that was helpful. Funk Junkie (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. :-) Funk Junkie (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across another issue: adding single covers to album articles isn't non-fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content? Funk Junkie (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too, but some time ago I had single covers I added to Angie Stone and India.Arie album articles deleted, and these singles didn't have their own articles, so it made me think it all over. Funk Junkie (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I think I'll use this method from now on whenever I come across cases like those. Funk Junkie (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mug shots

I started a thread here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mug_shots. Would you mind giving input? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Me At Six

This is the first time i have edited the article, i deleted the template by mistake, but i must protest the deletion, because they are one of the biggest bands on the Uk scene, and as you can see have been nominated for awards, and this article can be improved drastically within minutes, and it is my intention to do so when i next get a chance today. DavidJJJ (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Extensiontf

The case page looks alright to me. It seems that some of the CheckUsers are a bit busy at the moment. I'm sure if you ping a CU on IRC, they'll be able to handle your request ASAP. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving

I did warn them the night beforehand; and if you checked, you will find her name has the accent in it.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) (email) 13:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re "...intrusion."

No problem - in fact it is probably a good thing to have the occasional sysop action queried so that I can ensure that my criteria is valid. It is sometimes apparent that when an admin does not care for their actions to be subject to criticism (in the proper sense) otherwise good actions get picked to pieces for not being "perfect". So, if you spot anything else don't hesitate to bring it to my attention. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undefeated (album)

Your case is a little tl;dr, which may be why some people think it's not compelling. I do agree with you though, it's a horribly b0rked article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. tl;dr means "too long; didn't read". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lists and the GNG

Based on your comments, I added Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise#Proposal_A.4:_Lists_may_be_exempted_from_the_GNG, a proposal to "exempt" list-form articles from the GNG. Personally, I think they may actually be covered, but I would appreciate your comments, and it would be useful to see where consensus lies on this issue. Hiding T 16:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaliyah/Babygirl

Aaliyah was so called Babygirl!A lot of people called her that that was one of her nicknames.Have you realised that in most of every song Timbaland did with her with his rap he says Babygirl?It's true. Marexl (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

reply

There's a lot of junk in the history, and everything's in the archives. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus

Turns out one of my friends somehow got my password and did that, not me. Sorry about that, the password has now been changed. Geoking66_talk 03:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I completely agree: this is obviously an organized campaign to start a rumor. Block and protect as needed, and watch for sneaky attempts in other places. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done: must have been within seconds of your post on my page. Any idea where they are coordinating this? Antandrus (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus

Instead of deleting everyone's question about it and threatening a full pp, why don't you just post the truth on the talk page? I would think that would be easier, yeah? Cheers, Mazeau (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTB

Let's throw another sentence in there, then, which gets to the point that the character's fictional experiences are a kind of example introduction to the philosophical (and pseudoscientific) worldview which the filmmakers are advancing. Naturezak (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Her fictional experiences are offered by the filmmakers as an introduction to a philosophical worldview that combines novel, and in some cases scientifically unsupported, ideas about quantum physics and consciousness." Naturezak (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good for me! Naturezak (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock puppets.

HHNRecordsPR was banned from posting any more infomation on this site. Since that was everything I wanted to say, I placed my signature at the end of the comment. Also, since you are looking into the posting history, you can clearly see I placed my signature there after they were banned. Question, If I was HHNRecords, Why whould I disguise my identity if I thought I was posting the comment under the GhostDog21 user name? I know the person HHNRecordsPR, and just like me, they are not with the label either. I'm not sure why they picked that name, dumb idea. That person told me the reason they were banned was due to them having the label name in thier user name, and it seemed like they worked for the label, which is B.S. I noticed on the history of G-Unit Records and Shady Records that there are user names with the label in them, Heck, there is even an administrator with G-unit in their user name, and they make contributions to the label articles. • GhostDog21 (talk) 12:07:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needing attention

I posted about an article in dire need of attention at WPP:MUSIC. Dunno if you'd be interested in working on it but I know you as a strong editor of music-related articles. I just can't find the energy or time myself. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:00, 11 September 2008 (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.

Kww please look at the talk page on Aaliyah.I left something important. Marexl (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lohan

I stand corrected. Having never violated BLP, I never needed to know... :P Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability RfC

B.6 seems like it could be a viable compromise position with some modification, so I have created a set of notes for improvement/revision (User:Vassyana/RFC notes). I'm attempting to address as many points as possible while maintaining a coherent approach and principle. I believe that I address your concerns in the notes, so I would appreciate your feedback on the notes sandbox talk page to ensure I'm on the ball. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False vandalism charges

Hi. Please note the IP removed many chart positions and even a source on V (Vanessa Hudgens album). It was the same thing on Vanessa Hudgens discography. As you can see, these edits *are* vandalisms. Therefore, my warnings against this editor are totally justified. For the sales in the U.S., I don't know if this info is true or false, but this change came from a vandal, and I've supposed it was false. As I see you have reverted my changes, I will request arbitration by a third person. Europe22 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but frankly, I have a doubt on your good faith, as, for example, you let the IP do this change, that was clearly a vandalism (= ref removed and false chart positions)... I've asked an administrator, Garion96, his opinion. Europe22 (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has added the entry positions, not the peak positions. For example, the SNEP, that compiles French singles, albums and digital charts, says "Come Back to Me" was #12 on January 2007. See this link. You can find the same information on aCharts.com (see: "Peak positions" column) and on Lescharts.com, with the same chart trajectory. However, the IP user added #15 as peak position. See : this edit. As it was probably a mistake of the IP (he has mixed up the two colums "Entry positions" and "Peak positions"), I think it was not a vandalism of his part, but changes made with good faith. And it's probably the same thing in your case. Sorry. (Nevertheless these chart positions must be corrected). Sincerely. PS: Sorry for my bad English, and if you want, I will correct the chart positions and add references! Europe22 (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For this. henrik•talk 14:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I was too quick on the block button there. A second later I came to the same conclusion as you, it wasn't really malicious edits. Too often we just communicate in canned templates, without trying to talk to new editors. PS. you're doing a great job of hand-holding now. henrik•talk 15:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy userpages

Regarding the userpages, if the user is making constructive edits in the encyclopedia, then I'm willing to let them have a little latitude with their user pages. The ones I get on are the ones where their only edits are to their userpage. I saw a user today who was using his user talk page as a blog, and that's explicitly covered under WP:NOT. There's another one I watch who tends to use his userpage for some kind of classroom Survivor standings page; I think one of those pages was sent to MfD. Again, it was once it got to be that he wasn't editing the encyclopedia but was here just for the tracker thing. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for warning

Hey, thanks for pointing it out. I wasn't aware that the user had already been listed at WP:AIV, and had added my warning as a last one before a block was necessary. The warning your provided stated further edits may result in a block, while the one I provided, was a last resort with will block. Additionally, it looks like the user has stopped editing so a block is not necessary. However, if any additional edits the user has are not constructive, then he would qualify for being blocked. If you see that the user does so, I'd say post it again or WP:AIV or let me know and I'll block him. Let me know if you need further clarification and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I Grow Up

Please stop deleting all the charts on the When I Grow Up page. They're all accurate and they are of importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahboyyy (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but how do you get a peak of #2 for Sweden? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahboyyy (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PCD

Thanks for the heads up! I fixed it, with a Shout Out to you!! :) Ctjf83Talk 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please

Number 1, frankly, it doesn't concern you, so I would appreciate it if you would mind your own business. #2, I moved MY comment, not his. I never touched his. #3, putting comments like that happens all the time (it happened on the Main Page talk for example). You can back up whoever you want to, but please do not stick your nose in other people's business unless you are specifically asked. Thank you. Anakinjmt (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"just a hair"

Don't even worry about it, no offense taken, I understood. - eo (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, what he is doing now is unacceptable. He just reverted "When I Grow Up" again and I gave him a final. - eo (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]