1Dbad

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seank100 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk]

Sockpuppet? No, this is my only account. I used to only update from my IP address (only did it a couple of times) but then I started using my account and that's it. This is my only one. And why would I add stuff I remove and tell that user not to do? And I've edited plenty of other articles that that user hasn't. Like for Being Human, Melina Matsoukas and the like. Be sure to check his talk page history, because I chewed that user out same as you and others. I'm actually on your side of trying to stop him. 1Dbad (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: X Factor

If person A says person B is not involved but person B says they are then what makes person A more notable than person B? Steve Jones has said he's had meetings about the job and even mentioned co-hosting with Nicole Scherzinger. This shows that the information is quite recent, as is the interview as Nicole's presenting position was a recent consideration. Thus while the info is sourced from a reputable and reliable source it should be left in place. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I realize that, but it's not a case of who says what, but how it's been said. I've seen Dermot say otherwise with his own mouth via a video interview, while I have seen nothing but written articles about Steve Jones, nothing from his own mouth. It's not a case of one person being more reliable than another but the way in which the info was received. It's just at this rate I'm believing things actually confirmed by celebrities themselves via interviews more than the gossip, since it seems to be changing on the daily. (and while it it possible Steve Jones could be being considered now, it just seems odd they would change their mind on the shortlist at the last minute like that) And while true, any gossip website would be aware of the recent gossip and could have fabricated the whole article and added stuff like that to make it seem more current and more likely. While that may not be the case, it still is a possibility. But fine, while it is sourced and from one that is okay from Wikipedia I will leave it. Do know this is nothing to do with Steve Jones but the way in which our info right now is being received, and the way things now seem to be contradicting prior official statements. 1Dbad (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I know.. I'm aware that the likelihood of Steve Jones becomming the host is highy unlikely. I've been told (from an un-nameable source) that Nicole Scherzinger or Jessica Simpson will be the female host with Mario Lopez as the male host. I've also been told to expect Cowell and Reid to be joined by any two of: Mary J. Blige, Fergie, Shania Twain, Kelly Rowland, Celine Dionne, Diane Warwick or Mel B. It would be a wonderful combination but I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens first. There's been so many rumours who knows what's true and what's not. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh okay. I was just explaining it in case you didn't know (since I assumed you didn't based on your comment on my Talkpage explaining why I shouldn't do my edit), and to explain myself so you'd understand why I was doing my edits. XD I normally don't remove sourced stuff on Wikipedia articles so I thought I should explain myself and point out that isn't something I normally do. I guess the reason I was doing it with the Steve Jones thing though was just because I was so sure it wasn't true, and since it was something that other user (Seank100, right?) kept adding to the article. (who I'm glad has seemed to finally leave the article alone) But don't worry, I'll leave it alone for now though. And that's interesting that you've talked to an un-nameable source and got some info; do you think they're reliable though? Some of it sounds possible but some of it doesn't sound very likely, and I'm still kind of leery on stuff about the US X Factor right now. (you said it perfectly, "there's been so many rumours" it's hard to know what's true and what's not anymore) Most of it does sound pretty possible though, so I wouldn't be surprised if some of it turns out to be true. And I agree with you that some of it sounds really good actually, granted it's true. (especially about the judges) I must say I'm really surprised that Nicole and Jessica (who've both been rumors as possible judges for such a long time) are now just being rumored as hosts though. I'm really disappointed about it with Nicole since I really wanted her to be a judge and since I'm not too sure how good of a host she'd be, but to be honest I could care less about Jessica. XD I actually hope she won't be on the show at all, but if she has to be I would definitely just prefer her as a host since she wouldn't have to do as much. I must say I really like a lot of those females who could possibly be judges on the panel, I really hope at least one of them will be true. I'm especially glad to see that Paula Abdul and Cheryl Cole aren't on that list either, since I'd really prefer for them not to be on the show either. Thanks for sharing. 1Dbad (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Paula Abdul

Please stop your edit warring on The X Factor U.S. page. As long as the source is reliable, it's allowed. TVLine is reliable. They announced Abdul the same time as the hosts. FOX isn't the only reliable source. You have already broken the edit-warring rules, if you do it again, I will be forced to report you. You will receive a block with no warning. Jayy008 (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I will stop it for the time being, but I've only been doing what we've been doing forever and lots of other users have been doing. I do realize the source is reliable, but as far as I knew we weren't allowed to add it like it's officially confirmed until it is by Fox themselves. That has been the case with L.A., Cheryl, and the two hosts so I don't get why it would be any different now. And you're right, Fox isn't the only reliable source, but it is the official and truly accurate source -- which is why it's best to wait for them. But fine, I'll leave it alone then. I just don't see why everyone can't wait until we get official confirmation, which should be gotten within 20 minutes. Out of curiosity though, how long will the block last? :3 1Dbad (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, as a new editor, don't assume you know how things are done. As long as a source is reliable, then it is allowed. See WP:sources, it will give you all the information. I don't know how else I can explain it. Jayy008 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't assuming just because I could though. I was going by what other experienced editors were doing, and what has been the case with the article for months now. But okay, I'll leave it alone and be sure to check it out. 1Dbad (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's because of how much speculation has been going. People kept adding things randomly, every singer possible. Certain sources aren't allowed, but certain ones are. E! and TVLine are. I can't think of any others off of the top of my head. But when the press release is available, that's definitely a better source to use. Jayy008 (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. I already knew about the certain sources thing, but I didn't realize that the speculation was the cause of all of that then. From everything I saw things only seemed to be added when Fox confirmed them, regardless of what sources (no matter how reliable) were saying. Sorry about that, but don't worry, I'll stop now. It doesn't really matter anyway, we should have confirmation from Fox before too long on the final judge.

Out of curiosity though, how long will my block from the article last? :3 1Dbad (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that is was a personal preference of the experienced editors that were getting annoyed with it all. But to be honest, I hope TVLine and E! are wrong. The block will last 24 hours, but I haven't reported it. I don't know if it'll go unoticed, but you may be lucky to avoid it. If an admin sees it, though. They'll likely block straight away. Jayy008 (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems likely. To be honest I can't really blame them either, although I suppose that was already obvious. XD; And you and me both! I'm really hoping they'll be wrong as well, but with how many sources are reporting it I'm afraid they won't be... Who knows though, guess we'll see. And okay, thanks for the heads-up. Also, thanks for being so nice about this. :) 1Dbad (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I know they won't be, but I was hoping for a big star like Mariah Carey or Katy Perry. Paula Abdul is kind of irrelevant. And you're welcome, I'm happy to help new editors! Jayy008 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I was too! But unfortunately Mariah's pregnancy counted her out for this season and Katy Perry's tour counted her out as well. I still can't help but think Simon could have still found someone else though. And I agree! She really is. And that's great. :D I'm glad some users like to help us out, at least. xD 1Dbad (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep :(, maybe if it fails he'll be able to get Mariah next season. I mean, he could have found somebody else. Nicole would have been a better judge. And Steve Jones? I'm from the UK and everyone I've spoken to doesn't even like him. They should have got Dermot O'Leary or Reggie Yates. Jayy008 (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

He probably could get Mariah for next season if he tried. Heck, he probably could have got her for this season, but instead he just went with what he was familiar with and what was easiest. Hopefully it will fail though so he'll be forced to replace them with someone different. >:D And Nicole definitely would've been a better choice for a judge. She's relevant to the current music market unlike Paula, and she's actually well-known here unlike Cheryl Cole, so she's just a much better choice all around. Especially when you consider how good she was at the UK auditions last year. Not to mention, if she's going to be on the show at all she's much better suited to be a judge than a host, at least in my opinion. As for Steve Jones, I had never heard of him until I saw his name mentioned on the gossip websites as a possible host for the show (mainly due to being from the US), so I personally still don't have much of an opinion on him yet. Hopefully he won't be too bad though. And I definitely agree that they should have gotten Dermot. (I don't know Reggie Yates so I can't really say...) Heck, even if they wouldn't have chose Dermot there are still a lot of other good choices out there instead of Steve. I for one don't see why they didn't just try to find a US host to host the show. I mean this is supposed to be the US branch of the show after all, lol. 1Dbad (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! I only just saw this. TBH, I agree that Nicole is a better judge personally, but I've seen loads of hate for her in the U.S. I think Kelly Rowland and Nicole should be switched. Kelly needs the launch in the U.S., Nicole is known on her own. Everyone just sees Kelly as the "other Destiny member". I'd like Kelly Rowland, Mariah Carey, LA Reid and Simon for next season. I don't think this show will do very well. But I guess we'll see.

No worries! And I'm not surprised. I've noticed a lot of hate for her as well (at least online), but to be honest I don't know what the typical American thinks of her. (ironic since I live in the US and am American XD) Mainly because the hate I've seen for her is only from fans of certain things (like The Sing Off) so I don't know if that's truly the typical opinion of her or just the opinion of US fans of certain things. I agree with you though that it would be better if Kelly and Nicole were swapped. Like you said this would be the perfect thing to help Kelly's career here and would also help her to be seen as her own person, not just the "other Destiny's Child member.". Plus I think she would've actually been a benefit to the US panel more too. Paula and Nicole will both be more of the nice judges while LA and Simon will both be more of the mean judges, but had Kelly been on instead we would have had a judge (and a female one no less) who would have been the honest one. She wouldn't be too mean or too nice, just honest. (which I think the panel could've really benefited from) And Nicole would've worked better on the UK show since she seemed to love it there and the UK fans were very responsive to her. Plus the UK show needs a nice judge a bit more than the US one does. (since we already have Paula) Ah well though, I'm still happy with the choices regardless. At least I'll get to see Kelly on some X Factor and at least I'll have Nicole now instead of Cheryl. :D Plus Nicole still needs this somewhat. While she doesn't need any help to be known on her own her solo career actually hasn't done as well here as it has in other countries, so maybe this show can help give her solo career the boost that it needs. It might also change some people's opinions about her too if she's really good on it/if we're lucky. :3

I will admit I would love to see Kelly and Mariah on the show next season though.

And lastly, as for how the show will do...I dunno, I think the show will do well (at least well enough to last anyway), but I do agree that I don't think it'll be as big as it might of been. But like you said, guess we'll see this fall. :P 1Dbad (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything you said, with nothing to add lol. Jayy008 (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to ramble on like that or to take away anything you could add, lol. I am glad to hear you agree with me though! :D 1Dbad (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, lol. It saves me typing it! :) Jayy008 (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Msalmon with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Oddbodz (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How was it not constructive? I was explaining to the user why I thought we should add something to an article and I was also asking if he would mind if I edited something else. I was also apologizing for adding something that he didn't want added.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see what the problem was. (that I should have said it on the article's Talk page, not the user's.) 1Dbad (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)