User talk:JpGrB/Archive 2

This is the second archived talk page of User:JpGrB. For the first please refer here, for the page in which to post new topic, please refer here.

QSE

Hey. Yeah, I know that Sarah Silverman did the original song, but that source is irrelevant to the article at hand. The problem is, a lot of the sources seem to have been added to bulk up the references section in order to make it look like the article has more references than it actually does. I've been looking for better sources, but so far I haven't really found anything that would qualify as "substantial third-party coverage" under WP:WEB. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help you guys with the article. I think that the site is great, (I'm a massive SModcast fan) but I just don't know if the sources are out there to keep the article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My Life

The Game Mylife single only peaked at number 21 not #5 so i suggest you stop changin it to number 5 is that your favorite rapper or something, check billboard.com it tells you right there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Infamous (talk • contribs) 17:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

hi

is there something wrong

--Daisy404 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Jay and Silent Bob

Thanks for your note. I did see that they sold "illegal fireworks". I have yet to "cleanly" combine all aspects of the characters. Part of the issue is that Mr Smith likes to make his characters somewhat amorphous. That said, I do plan to add many of these odd details to give a "complete" picture. Thanks again. meatclerk (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: BLP Help.

Hey, about the Thisis50 thing - use the source if the thisis50 blog is reliable (i.e. lists its source). With the name thing, review both of the sources & use the one that seems most reliable. If they both look equally reliable, put both names saying something like "One source lists his/her birth name as...whereas another refers to him/her as..."

Hope this helps. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

thisis50.com is a non-notable user-generated Ning site that does not meet WP:RS even if users are rewriting content and linking to a legitimate article. Since you continue to want to add this link to articles (based on your talk page discussions), I would recommend asking for a second opinion at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN since I will continue to remove these links. And please note that music genre or record label or who owns the web site does not alter the stringent sourcing policy of WP:BLP. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 04:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

L.A.X.

Could just add both references. SE KinG (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't you think it's important to mention the U.S. release date? And where was the album released on August 23? Europe? Noble12345 (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But the U.S. date should be added. Can you please add the U.S. date? Noble12345 (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Only Built For Cuban Linx

Here is an interview where he did during a Rock The Bells Show, where he stated the new release date to Only Built For Cuban Linx II, it is now February. The same date I keep changing it too. http://www.vimeo.com/1468161 (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Daisy404

please get back to me --Daisy404 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)dasiy404--Daisy404 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!

It's really therapeutical to revert vandalism on wikipedia :). --Seba5618 (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Young Buck Talk

I have replied to your comment on the Young Buck talk page Fr3shjp (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to your comment on the Young Buck talk page--Fr3shjp (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Can you come up with the different dates please? In the article on Nas' untitled album, there is a release history of dates and countries. Can you please create something like that? This makes no sense. Fclass (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Game's LAX album. Fclass (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You cannot find this out? You cannot do the research? Also, you don't own the article. Fclass (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

re User:Tahitia and flags....

.... I note that this editor seems quite limited in his/her understanding of Wikipedia culture, including not using edit summaries, and not ever replying to her talk page notices (which are just about 100% templated warnings about bad behaviour).

seems to me that he/she might be genuinely confused or ignorant about policy, and that offering advice and pointers to relevant materials might be more productive in the long run than a WP:AIV report. Relevant pointer.... WP:BITE, even though she's been here for a while; nobody's talked to her that I can see. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Eminem's 6th.

Yeah I know lol. Only reason I said it. SE KinG (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Before I Self Destruct

Can you please consider restoring my contribution to Before I Self Destruct? I have some sources:

http://www.kanyeuniversecity.com/blog/?em3106=206717_-1__0_~0_-1_9_2008_0_0&em3281=&em3161= http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1595239/20080919/west_kanye.jhtml http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1594781/20080915/50_cent.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyj1218 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

HSM3

Stop removing the certification when i have added a reliable source as you asked for! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hithere2008 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Check next to the title, it shows the certification in a yellow triangle that clearly states "PG" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hithere2008 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Zack & Miri.

Will this do? --trogga 18:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Do I post on your talk page or mine? Anyway, you can go ahead and add it. --trogga 19:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Do what you want. --trogga 19:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My Life

You re-did my edits to My Life (Lil Wayne song) twice. Why?-71.63.45.143 (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Linking dates is now against the Wikipedia policy? That's ignorant!

Okay, but I still think part of the genre of the song is R&B as well as hip hop. Fair enough?-71.63.45.143 (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I do not know of any source that states that the song is R&B. However, it sounds R&B to me when Lil Wayne sings it since he is not rapping. What does it sound to you?-71.63.45.143 (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing about what it sounds like to us means nothing is ignorant!-71.63.45.143 (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Whats wrong with telling people the weekly ratings for Desperate Housewives? Why should I not be posting them up? Is there a actual reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoottscoott (talk • contribs) 00:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

So if I put a reference of where I'm actually getting this information (the ratings) from I'll be fine?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoottscoott (talk • contribs)

Is Everything Alright Now?

I've updated the weekly ratings thing and just wondered if it's alright and follows Wikipedia's rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoottscoott (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you can probably tell I'm new. Thanks for all your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoottscoott (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Genre.

Hello, recently the genre field has been removed from Template:Infobox Album per consensus reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box?. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

HEY!!!

I think the time has come. WikiProject Psychopathic Records is a big boy now, i think it deserves its own permanent page, amrite?--the juggresurection ^{(>-.-(Vಠ_ಠ)} 03:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Saw October 2008 Newsletter

The WikiProject Saw Newsletter Issue IV - October 2008
Member news The project has currently 29 members.	From the Members Welcome to the fourth issue of the WikiProject Saw's newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. Another year, and another Saw. The penultimate(?) entry to the series, Saw V, will becoming out in less than two weeks. We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask. CyberGhostface 18:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Pages Needing Cleanup List of traps in the Saw film series: This article should be improved if it is to survive deletion. Look for more below.
Monthly Collaboration Perhaps for the remainder of this month (and the next couple of ones) we can work on Saw V's article. I have a feeling once the film comes out the page will be filled to the brim with information, a lot of which could be trimmed. The other film articles could use some work as well.
Newsletter Challange Important Right now the biggest challenge is to save List of traps in the Saw film series from deletion. There are two things that can be done. First you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (3rd nomination) and voice your argument as to why it should be kept. Important: read over Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Saying stuff like "Saw rules, it should be kept" will not help at all. Just as important: improving the article so it has a fighting chance. I.E. Focus less on plot of the films but more "real world" information...I.E. the traps' impact on popular culture, reception they may have received, cited comparisions and allusions to actual devices (just pulling comparisions out of thin air would be original research. Try to make the character articles more encyclopedic by making them less in-universe. See Jigsaw and Amanda's articles for guidance. Also see Jason Voorhees, which is a featured article. (Obviously there is more information on Jason available than the Saw characters, but it is worth looking at to see what's considered the best of the best.) Because of the nature of the series, poorly written articles could be considered 'deletion-bait' and 'cruft'...the better written the articles, the less likely this would happen. Some of the plot articles seem to be overtly long. Without bowdlerizing them, maybe we could try to make them a bit shorter and concise. Try to invite more members to this project. If you know any Saw fans who are good with computers, invite them to Wikipedia. The more the merrier.

--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 'Saw - The Ride' from the Saw page

just noticed that, as part of a 'tidy up', you removed some information about the new Saw ride being built at Thorpe Park. Can you explain why please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixshelton (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh heck, I'm sorry. I'm very new to this, and I meant well. I've got a source, it's www.thorpepark.co.uk. I'm afraid I wasn't sure what the right place would be, but I'll have another look at the article and see if there's somewhere it would fit better. as for it being non-notable, i'm afraid I dont know what you mean. Could you explain please? Once again, I'm so sorry, and I hate to be a nuisance, but my intentions are good! Felixshelton (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Aw, thanks buddy! I was kinda worried when I got that first message from you, so it's nice to know you're supportive. The thing is, I can see how it was in the wrong place, and I understand what you mean about it being 'unsourced'. Other people have tried adding information about the Saw Ride, but they seem to have been removed again. Perhaps if we discuss it on the talk page for the article, we can all agree on something? Thanks again for your support. I really appreciate it. Felixshelton (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw

Thanks. At this point, what I'm most concerned about (besides the traps) is the character articles. Besides the obvious ones (Jigsaw and Amanda), they seem to be mostly plot summary. I'm not sure if we should merge them at some point or try improving them.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Genre

Please stop removing that field. They put it back in for a reason! --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is where it was reinstated. That's why it's showing up. When they took it out, it disappeared. Now that they put it back, it shows up again. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I'm the guy who added the critical commentary on the Saw films. I noted from the comment on one of your edits that you're writing a paper on this subject. I wanted to ask, are you senior in HS or in college? I'm also curious to hear your take on these films. I think that the move toward ever-increasing sadism in horror films reflects something crucial about our age and culture, but I'm still groping around the subject without much definition.

Personally, I don't care for the films, or anything quite so brutal. (I find the real world to be ugly enough without fabricating whole new genres of ugly.) But I don't mean to judge, and I note from your personal page that you rather enjoy the first Saw film. Apart from the simplistic "ain't it cool" psychological effects, what do you think the appeal is specifically? And I urge you to be general, setting aside the specific merits or flaws of the films' writing, fx, etc, etc.

I realize that the questions I'm asking are personal, and in one case, rather nebulous. If you have a moment to reply, I'd very much appreciate it.

Re: your comment, good luck in film, it's a tough business to hack. Talking about the odd connection between no-budget horror and film superstardom, (as you are likely aware) Sam Raimi of the Spiderman franchise began his career shooting the Evil Dead pictures, and Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings fame began with the splatter-fest 'Dead Alive' in addition to several other arguably less tasteful films. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.119.178 (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Time zones

Sorry about the edit I did on Saw V. I guess that we are in different time zones, because for me, it's October 25th right now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DisturbedTim90 (talk • contribs)

Reliable sources

IMDB? NOT a reliable source? Are you actually KIDDING me? Why then does everyone use it? Dave (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC) OK, I've checked it. The official site has these dates, as does trekmovie.com. See here:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/07/19/star-trek-to-get-global-premiere-us-not-the-first/

http://www.startrekmovie.com/releasedates/

Dave (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the new source is from the official site, set up by Paramount, so it should get a consensus. Dave (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Saw Characters

It was better before when the characters were categorized by the first film they appeared in. As it is now: 1) It is more difficult to navigate through with the "minor characters" being such a long list. 2) The labels 'antagonist', 'protagonist', 'supporting', and 'minor' are subjective and arguably fall under Original Research. 3) It is spoiler-like to outline which characters eventually become protagonists and antagonists. Of course the page will give spoilers, but giving spoilers in the contents doesn't seen appropriate, as this is a list, someone might want to browse down the contents list for a specific character, only to be spoiled about something else in the contents list.

It should be reverted to the old structure of organizing characters based on their first appearance in my opinion. Mostly for reason number 2).

What do you think?

Yeldarb68 (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the old way, that is, categorization by first appearance was the most suitable. It was the most straight-forward and objective, and thus encyclopedic. There was no debating which film was a character's first appearance. That's how scientific in its approach that it was. Even the label "villain" is questionable, since I believe the film-makers have stated that they do not like the stereotypical hero/villain dichotomy to begin with. Some going to the extent of suggesting Jigsaw is a vigilante or even an anti-hero. Regardless, all this ideological and semiotic posturing is subjective. Categorization by first appearance was the most objective and scientific and encyclopedic approach. The old framework should be re-implemented. Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A person who read a character whose first appearance was in Saw I, and then was surprised to find information about their appearances in later films only have themselves to blame. As it was before, it was clearly specified in the opening paragraph above the contents section that it was merely dividing the characters by first appearance. If they did not read that opening paragraph explaining that, that would have been their own fault. Yeldarb68 (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your message, you should at LEAST put in something saying that the character's last name appears in one of the movies. If you don't do that, people such as myself, won't believe it and will continue to remove the information. I see that you have added that the last name appears in Saw V for the characters I have continuously fixed, and that is at least a citation. And my edits were NOT disruptive. If it was not for my edits, you probably would not have put in the fact that the character's last names appeared in Saw V. You never had it there before when I edited. But you did ater my second edit. You should be a bit nicer in your edit summaries. Calling edits that are NON-VANDALIZING disruptive is rude, as I was not vandalizing, only pointing out that there should be a citation that proves that this is the last name, since you never said it before that the last name appears in Saw V.142.177.172.97 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Record labels

Albums released under multiple imprints should have their labels listed from smallest to largest, divided by a "/", not a comma. The reason for the "/" is it's not being released on more than one label, the labels are subsidiaries of progressively larger labels. For example, if Young Money Entertainment actually released any albums it would be Young Money/Cash Money/Universal. In the case of Shady Records, it's a subsidiary of Interscope, so the proper format is Shady/Interscope. Labels should only be divided by commas if the album was released in multiple pressings on different labels—say Interscope in the US and Sony in Europe, or if it was originally on Interscope and then re-issued later on Warner Bros. Understand? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• And, if you thought I was making some kind of crack about Shady Records (I wasn't), this is what I meant by vanity label. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JpGrB. 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.

Zack and Miri

List of reasons why the Canadian poster is more recognizable.

1. If you've only seen the commercials, the Canadian poster is more recognizable.
2. If you can recognize the US poster, you can recognize the Canadian poster.

Those are two very compelling reasons why the Canadian poster is far, far better. The film came out in Canada on the exact same day, the Canadian poster is recognizable to everyone as opposed to 1/4 of the English regions. There is no guideline or policy that suggests linking the movie poster with the region it was made in is more important than accessibility for readers. Recognizability has been made an issue by people arguing for the US poster, but the argument is purely tilted towards increasing recognizability for one region, even though the original movie poster would be recognizable to everyone, including the US market. On top of that, which one do you think will be of more use - a movie poster of stick figures, or a movie poster featuring two very famous actors that all parties would easily recognize? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I mean, it's all well and good that you have a majority vote in a discussion, not a vote, and that your majority vote does not explain why this action is good for readers, but going back on that, why is this good for the readers? It's Wikipedia's job to make articles for readers, so the idea that "US film = US poster" is faulty, because the US poster may only be appropriate if it's good for the readers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides the fact that you are not a reader, you are an editor, you are only arguing of how recognizable a movie poster is to one region. What about Canada? This is the English Wiki, not the American Wiki. You seem to suggest that people have to be able to see a movie poster in real life for it to be recognizable - because it features the actor and actress of the film, it will be immediately recognizable to anyone who is aware of the movie, while the movie poster is only recognizable to people who visit the theater. You need to stop being so Amero-centric. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Saw V, Cast section

Hi, I just wanted to say that I don't like the format of the cast section of the Saw V article as it is now. I don't want to get into an edit war over it, so I thought I'd ask you what you think of it, since you are quite interested in the Saw articles. Thanks. Kind regards, Yeldarb68 (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel that the information of which films some characters originated can be accessed in their respective section in the list of characters, which is linked. So it seems unnecessary to put it in the cast list. What do you think? Yeldarb68 (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

T.I. vs. T.I.P.

Hello, regarding your edits to the T.I. vs. T.I.P. article, if you were aware the word "to" was missing, why did you not just add the word instead of adding the tag and hidden text? --HELLØ ŦHERE 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

When I first read the sentence I thought it had been totally garbled. When I read your edit comment "It's the first one not to feature" I realised it was probably just a one-word typo. Seems obvious, but I didn't notice. 81.129.129.12 (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

jay and Silent Bob

Don't understand why you undid my edit to this article. There are easily many items and points that fall out of WikiStandards to that article. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Lost cast

Before deleting content in such a way, I suggest suggesting it at the talk page. Rehevkor ✉ 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Folie a Deux

Please stop policing the page for this article. The information placed there is accurate and there is no need to try to be an internet tough guy. You're not doing anybody any favors by deleting the information placed on that page and then spamming the edit box with notices. I am currently in possession of a copy of the CD in question because I work at a record store who just recieved a shipment of the album yesterday. If you don't want to accept that, then you can try again tomorrow or the day after when my CD arrives in the mail anyways. Since the information is accurate, let it be for now. People who come to that page looking for information are doing just that - looking for information - not looking to see how well moderated the page is. You're being ridiculous, and behavior such as yours does not help improve the credibility of this website (which, as I'm sure you are aware of, is already much scrutinized). Chill out. The page is being reverted again. It contains accurate information and there is no reason to delete it just because it makes you feel better. Kmanning2008 (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of God-complex you've got, but it needs to stop. The information on the FaD album page is correct and should be left as is. If your problem with the edit is that the album hasn't been released yet, you're wrong. Two different copies of the album (vinyl and CDA) are on their way to my mailbox and will arrive within 48 hours. The CDs have left the factory and ownership is being placed into the hands of the consumers. Where I'm from, we like to say that an album such as that has been "Released". So chill out and just let the information be. It's correct, and if you don't stop, I will have a petition started for your removal from this site for obstructing the flow of free information, which is exactly what you're doing. You're not acting like much of a "born again christian wikipedian" right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmanning2008 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem? Now you're trying to say that I'm not a credible source of information? The information that I have right now IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE ON THE RELEASE DATE OF THE CD. THE RETAIL COPY OF THE CD ON THE DESK IN FRONT OF ME IS NOT MAGICALLY GOING TO CHANGE IN LENGTH ON TUESDAY. THE CD HAS BEEN RELEASED FROM THE FACTORY AND THE INFORMATION I AM PROVIDING IS CORRECT.

If you wish to debate this with me now, I can almost understand that, but come tomorrow or Wednesday when I get the other two copies in my mailbox and provide pictures, you're going to leave my edits alone. The page is once again being reverted because you are wrongfully deleting accurate information. I'm not sure what the big deal is here, but you will be reported for an edit war if you keep up. You are not a moderator. Kmanning2008 (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If the information is correct, why stop it from being posted? You're fighting with me over something that isn't worth fighting about. The CD is not a "leak". It is a copy of the album that will be released on the street date. It's not vandalism, so stop calling it that just so you can make yourself feel better about removing it. The information is accurate. Please just chill out and let the information stay. It is correct and the huge box of CDs at my store can testify to that. This is YOUR last warning. You will be reported for violating my freedom of speech on this website. Sounds ridiculous? Well so are you right now, and I will do it. Just chill out and stop threatening me about something as petty as a row of numbers. Kmanning2008 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting the page. I have tried to reach an agreement with you, but you have not been following the Wikipedia policies that YOU YOURSELF are preaching so heavily (such as the proper way to resolve an edit war; your solutions so far have only been to threaten me). I will bring about an arbitration case if you revert this edit. Please reconsider your stance in this situation, because I really don't want to have you banned. Kmanning2008 (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you finally going to let the edit stand? If so, thank you very much. Kmanning2008 (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not revert the current edit. Since my personal credibility/word wasn't good enough for you, I have listed the OFFICIAL Amazon.com track listing (with track durations) as the source for both of my MINOR EDITS. Have a good night. Kmanning2008 (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Content dispute".

I have a brief question. On the WP:AIV page, you have twice removed my addition of a user, and at least once removed another users, for lack of a better word, "complaint". I have added several users to that particular list over time, and usually, the admins that look at them try to solve the dispute. May I ask what makes a "content dispute", which usually seems like the reason for adding names to that list, not worth looking over to see if a block is in order? I am not saying I am right, nor the user User:Kmanning2008 is right, I am just asking if you have looked over the situation before dismissing it as a "content dispute"? If you have, I'm sorry for prying. And if it seems as though I am accusing you of anything, I am sorry for that also, that is not what I'm insinuating. I was just wondering. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not saying there isn't something that needs to be done about your complaint, but WP:AIV isn't the place to report it. It's for Vandalism only. See WP:DR for dispute resolution. --fvw* 02:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But if they're vandalizing in a content dispute, such as this person saying their source is the website Amazon, which, as far as I know, has been proven to be wrong, and can't be counted as a source, just like most other retailers. This person has also sourced themselves, and their physical copy of a CD, but without a source, how can one tell? This doesn't count as vandalism? --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But thank you for trying to help me understand. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, see the "What is not vandalism" list on WP:Vandalism. --fvw* 02:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

ok two things

• 01. it is better to have the producers/songs in a LIST format rather than a paragraph. all you're doing is saying, "the album is going to be produced by cool & dre. also pharrell said he might be producing a couple tracks. and oh yeah street runner, he's gonna be on the album too" WHY NOT JUST LIST IT???? IT MAKES MORE SENSE.

• 02. how can you say "youtube is not reliable"? if someone references an mtv news video with a youtube link, is that not reliable? cuz that's what you're basically saying. i don't see what you're trying to prove. it seems to me that you are just a really controlling person judging by all the comments on your talk page. i have reasons for making my edits. i like organization and efficiency. i also like adding relevant information, like an artist who openly says he's going to be on an album in an interview. just because it wasn't reported by mtv doesn't mean it's not credible. all mtv does is take what an artist says and compiles it into an article.

User notice: temporary 3RR block

I haven't edited since the block, and someone else has already come along and begun to speak with both of us on the talk page. Also, I am very apologetic for my actions. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a promise to avoid reverting for a while and participate in the discussion. On that basis, you are unblocked (also, "I haven't edited since the block" is amusing) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[1] made on December 13 2008 to Tha Carter III: The Rebirth

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 12 hours.

You get 12h because you have no block log, and I don't see a clear 3RR warning.

William M. Connolley (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

F-22 Raptored

The facts are proven correct on what I stated, what you are doing now is considered vandalism and I will request a block on the page if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F-22 Raptored (talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about the date release, but apparently you can't admit you are wrong, Fall Out Boy is stated as Pop Punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F-22 Raptored (talk • contribs)

I have decided to get a Third opinion, If you agree to this, whichever the third opinion thinks, (Pop or Pop Punk), it will be used as the album genre and it will remain that way. If either of us would change the genre After the Third Opinion negotiation, it will be called vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F-22 Raptored (talk • contribs) 03:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Subpage talk page redirects.

Help

I have read that message you left on my talk page, I will edit your page and make it better to read and configurate.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

done, now repeat

Now copy what I have done in the music section and apply it to all of your other sections, but replace the userboxes. More information about this topic can be found at Wikipedia:Userboxes. Important note: try not to have too may userboxes, not every person will read all of them.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 01:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ChuckTV.jpg

Image:ChuckTV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I have not contacted you in a while pirmarily due to the fact that I have been rather busy with my last year of high school.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 04:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Wall Street

I will certainly take a look. I have been really busy so sorry for the delayed response. --Ayoleftyz (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives group

You had previously expressed interest in working with a group focused on the articles related to Desperate Housewives. I thought you would be interested in knowing that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Desperate Housewives task force has now been created for that purpose. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Saw Petition

I reazlize your point of view on removing my petition. But, the point of wiki is to post any and all information pertaining to the article's topic. If people can post controversy issues for Grand Theft Auto IV, I should be allowed to post Public Reactions (Which would include my petition) on Saw: The Video Game. I did in fact stay a neutral point of view and just put the details on there. I am going to repost the petition, and if you happen to re delete it, (I rather hope you don't) then I will stop posting it on articles, only on talk pages (which are meant especially for public viewpoints, so there is no reason to delete that.

Thank you and I understand your reasoning for deleting, but do not agree.

GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)GroundZ3R0 002

it seems you still can't admit you are wrong. You had it fine, until you got to the review part.

Reviews cannot be used as source since there are other reviews out there with their own opinion, you just happened to choose the one to back you up. Its also far from R&B, it says it is like R&B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F-22 Raptored (talk • contribs) 02:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Folie à Deux (album)

Both you and User:F-22 Raptored have been edit warring and have broken the three revert rule. I haven't blocked either of you but I have protected the page. Please resolve your disputes on the talk page and when you have resolved them you may use {{Adminhelp}} on your talk page or {{edit protected}} on the article talk page to ask that the protection be removed. Alternately, you can leave a message on my talk page and ask me to remove the protection once the dispute has been resolved. Protonk (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Shady Records.

Hey bro, I thought about what you said on the Ca$his EP and I was ready to accept, but then the thought occurred to me: "Is it REALLY an EP?" Read up on it - EP - the part where it says anything over 30mins is an album. The County Hound EP is just over 32 min. Thoughts? -- Harish (Talk) - 03:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha joka, nah I was just messing with you - I'd agree that if it's labelled a EP it isn't really an album. That, or the column heading could be changed to a more appropriate title. -- Harish (Talk) - 03:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Tha Carter III: The Rebirth: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why I didn't block User:NightHunter35

Hi. I saw the report you made on the above user at WP:AIV, but have not blocked him/her. The reasons are as follows: first of all, it appears to be a content dispute. WP:AIV is not the place for reporting that. Whilst repeatedly adding incorrect information may be considered vandalism, that only follows if they have been appropriately warned. However, the warnings on the user's talk page just go straight in and accuse the person of vandalism. If someone has been adding obsenities, libellous material, or being very disruptive, that is an appropriate course to take. But for this user, you really should have used the WP:AGF approach. If you haven't already seen these templates before, might I suggest you use WP:MLT? It will save on a lot of typing, and will ensure that the admin will be more likely to block.

Please do not be discouraged in reporting vandals; every little bit helps. If you have any questions about this, please do not hesitate to ask. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply!

Sorry I've been meaning to reply to you for a while but I've been a bit lazy on wiki for the past couple of weeks. I appreciate the offer, but I don't really need any help at the moment because I'm going through this lazy phase. I'm planning on working on the Locke article once I can get my lazy butt in gear. The best way to get an article up to good article is to look at other ones so you can see the kinda standard required. All the character articles and all the episode articles follow the same structure so it's fairly easy to see what to do. Hardest bit is just gathering the information, but if you look at other articles you'll see that they tend to use similar websites as sources. Sanders11 (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)