JediCarlos
|
_mod.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Hello JediCarlos. Regarding the Prince page, there is currently a question about whether the trivia section has relevence to that article. Please do not re-add that section without first contributing to the Prince Discussion page. Thanks. -- eo 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi JediCarlos, I assume you know how to view a discussion page (the "discussion" tab located at the top of any article). Once there, you can edit a discussion page the same way you would edit any other article... put your text below the part you want to respond to. Just make sure you sign any comments you make with four tildes ~~~~ and this will automatically append your name to the comments so people know who left it. You may also want to check the "history" tab to look at the "edit summary" text that people use when editing a page. With regard to Prince, there was a question about the validity of the "trivia" section as the contents seemed rather vague and need further explanation. This is why your addition was repeatedly removed - as you kept adding it without contributing to the coversation. Feel free to leave any comments there and all editors can come to a conclusion about the trivia. -- eo 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Prince edit
Erm yes, I would say that link is perfectly fine to put in the article. Go right ahead. — FireFox • T [18:40, 6 April 2006]
- Yes I agree, that link looks fine to me too. Although it goes directly to the offical Prince page, it couldn't hurt. -- eo 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
As for the second link, we don't really need two links which eventually end up at the same site... if you fell it's necessary, fine, put it in, but don't be surprised if someone reverts you. — FireFox • T [19:36, 6 April 2006]
- Well if they both lead to the same information there's not much point having both URLS - thats the way it works. — FireFox • T [19:50, 6 April 2006]
- I agree, you don't really need to add the second one unless you really want to. You don't have to ask us permission each time - don't be afraid to BE BOLD. If there is a major problem or question with anything you add, somebody will make a comment on a Talk Page or revert it or contact you directly for an explanation. Otherwise, if you have something that you think helps the article and it is legit, go ahead and edit. -- eo 19:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Question edit
I'm not sure who told you that I was currently on duty (because, unfortunately, I wasn't), but I'm here now and I'll be happy to help you if I can. What seems to be the problem? – ClockworkSoul 14:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
"Crazy" disambiguation page edit
Hey there-
The reason for a disambiguation page, in my interpretation, is to provide links to pages with identical or nearly identical titles. "Crazy" is a very common word in song titles, so it seems to me that if you're going to include "Crazy You" and "Let's Go Crazy" (and a few others I deleted, such as "She Drives Me Crazy"), there are dozens or even hundreds of others that should also be included — like Gershwin's "Crazy For You," Queen's "Crazy Little Thing Called Love," Beyonce's "Crazy in Love," and Eminem's "Crazy in Love," to name just a few.
By the way, the reason I left in the Britney Spears song is that the main title of the song (the non-parenthetical part) is just plain "Crazy," and I believe the song is often referred to by that one-word title, so it seems reasonable to assume that a user looking for that song's page would just type in "crazy" rather than "(You Drive Me) Crazy," whereas that seems doubtful with a song called, for example, "Crazy You."
Make sense?
Charolastra charolo 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Crazy article edit
I removed "Crazy You" and "Let's Go Crazy" because it is unlikely that anybody looking for either song will end up at Crazy. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists for the related guidelines. I kept Spears' song for the same reasons Charolastra charolo explained above. --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's best to stick with songs entitled only "Crazy" and no other words. The reason for this is to keep the list as simple and organized as possible, since it is such a common word. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 23:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are you fighting to have a refererence on Automatic for the Prince song? It is unnecessary and clutters the page. As the style guide says, the only purpose of disambiguation pages is to direct readers at the topic that they wanted. So the first thing that a reader who wants to know about the Prince song will do is go to Automatic (Prince song), where the same reference appears. Disambiguation pages would be impossible to maintain if every entry had to duplicate the references in the page it linked to. --Strait 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The manual of style for disambiguation pages discourages the use of notes, external links, and other links irrelevant to the articles to which the disambiguation page may be referencing. Please stop re-adding your external link, and please note that reverting the article excessively could be in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This is true of Automatic as well. Please stop adding extra links. --Strait 20:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair use images on your user page edit
File:Signtimes.JPG listed for deletion edit
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Signtimes.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
