User talk:NrDg/Archive 080131

---

How to use talk pages: (guidelines from Template:User talk top)

• Please continue any conversation where it was started.

Thus if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here.

I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

• If you want to initiate a conversation, please create a new heading here.

Continue existing conversations under existing headings.

Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

• Indent your comments when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• Sign your comments automatically using ~~~~.

---

Archives: 070625-070920-071102-071231

---

Edits to David Gilmour article

Thanks for suggesting User: Spike Wilbury's name for dispute resolution on David Gilmour article. He has commented on the dispute and i'm sure we'll reach a middle ground on improving the article. Meanwhile, I'm working on getting Hilary Duff article to FA status. Currently it is a GA article. I have listed it for peer review to get a feedback on the article. Any suggestions on improving that article is welcome....Thanks again and a Happy new year !!!! ..Gprince007 (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

Hello, I just wanted to ask, about the edit to HSM 3; aren't info-boxes supposed to not have the spaces? Like this? If I'm wrong, I apologize for wasting your time. Thank you. --JpGrB 00:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't reverting what you did. There was a lot of vandalism and vandalism reverts so I just rolled back to the last version before all the activity. Sometimes vandalism doesn't get completely undone so I like to get back to a known clean version. I didn't mean to step on anything you did - you have done everything ok as far as I can see. Sorry for any confusion. --NrDg 00:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'm sorry, I had just been wondering. I actually do that often, just go back to a known clean version. Thank you for the help. --JpGrB 01:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Zoey 101

Actually I just did a couple of minutes before you left your message :-) I agree its gotten pretty bad. Its protected for 2 weeks, we'll see what happens after that. Best, Gwernol 02:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

TVRage

I want to know exactly why TVRage is not a reliable source. We have many editors there who are very dedicated to their work, and work harder than most tv.com editors, but you allow tv.com content and not TVRage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FullHouseDude24 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not my call. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2007#www.tvrage.com for some more info. --NrDg 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Credible?

I've been accused of not assuming good faith often enough. Do you find it credible that Image:Img062.jpg is from an editor's camera? I questioned him about it, and he insists that it isn't downloaded.Kww (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks dubious to me. Looks like a pro shot and extra info is not from a camera. Couldn't find the image with a quick web search, though, so have no proof the uploader is not being truthful about ownership. Suggest tagging it as disputed. See WP:PUI if not familiar with process. --NrDg 20:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please! Not so harsh!

The user didn't vandalize Stan Marsh's article. I've removed tags from articles before, thinking that they were dealt with already, and they were put back again because they actually weren't finished yet. Judging by the user's summary, that was probably the case with them. Please do not call it vandalism unfairly. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally I'm not but this user was doing this type of thing a lot and I was just doing quick reverts to undo the damage. --NrDg 03:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. But you know you could do; you could erase everything in the summary. That would go to say... absolutely nothing! Much better than saying the incorrect. Good advice? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, even better. Just press the undo button for that edit in the history of the article. Then readers know you undid the revision, but you didn't say that the user vandalized. Still better than saying the incorrect, but also even better because it also says what you did! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There should always be something in the summary to explain why a change was made. In the context of just this one edit, if that what all that I saw of his activity, I would normally give a message about not removing templates or content without an explanation in the summary as the reason for a revert (content removed, no reason given) and drop a warning saying the same on his user talk page. {{uw-delete1}}. As he was doing this type of thing more than a few times, I thought a vandal warning was more appropriate for what he was doing in aggregate. I didn't see just a good faith removal of templates in this case. Anyway, I appreciate your comments and concerns. I agree WP:AGF is the way things should normally be handled. --NrDg 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The only qualm I have with all that is you seem to agree that it's uncertain whether the user meant to be unconstructive or not. Yet you say it's easier and more effective to give them a vandal warning. Yes, but that's a very legalistic tactic, and it makes Wikipedia seem like a cruel online environment (which some of the policies and the mergist/deletionist users have already done well enough for the time being). Anyway, I'm just thankful that you turned out to be one of the thoughtful, considerate types who realize where potential harm may have been in the way they handled a situation. Too many times have I pleaded with users to be gentler, only to find that they really have no concern for others' reputations at all!

Wilhelmina Will (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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy editing! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Freddie Prinze Jr

Am I wrong to say he's best known for being in poorly-reviewed teen films? I'll happily source it, if you wish. 82.11.145.200 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reference from a good solid review source (see WP:RS) that basically says what you state that "he's best known for being in poorly-reviewed teen films" then add the phrase but make sure the reference is also in the article. As it stands now the statement sounds too much like a personal opinion WP:NPOV or original research WP:OR. (Moved conversation back to your page) --NrDg 03:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you.

     Do you think you can censor me ,the voice of the people.I am not pleased with what you just did.Vandalism you say?

That was a joke, but if you want to get serious I could sue you for harrassment.

           AND IF YOU NOT DOWN WITH DAT THEN WE GOT 2 WORDS FOR YOU F*** YOU.

YA DIG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR.QUATRARIO (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dancing with the Stars (US season 6)

There's really no point in keeping around a protected redirect to nowhere... plus the redirect cleanup adminbot will just come along and nuke it... in the meantime, I've just redirected it back to Dancing with the Stars. east.718 at 11:06, January 8, 2008

What do I have to do?

I have a question as to why pages keep getting edited to delete images I upload. What do I have to do to follow the rules and still be able to upload images to Wikipedia articles. I am asking because I am really new at contributing to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbacani (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your page. --NrDg 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Warnings to other users

Thanks for catching that edit on High School Musical 3, the same IP also removed content from Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Just a suggestion, when doing the warning, always start with the "Level-1" warning. That allows other editors to issue the level-2 and so on, that way we can point out a clear procession of warnings in case a block has to be issued. Good eye, keep up the good work!! Edit Centric (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is sort of a judgment call on how severe the vandalism was. Level 1 and level 2 are about the same and assume good faith except for the hearty welcome message in the level 1 messages. Most IPs make 1 or 2 edits and never edit again. Generally I don't even bother with a message for the first time if there is no previous edit history and the edit looked like "hey I found the edit" button type edit test. For IPs who potentially look to be seriously disruptive I like to give a level 2 then a level 4 then a block for 31 hours. For logged in users I do the full sequence. I used to do that for IPs as well but found unrolling a serious vandal's damage too hard to do sometimes and I've found that serious vandals ignore the messages anyway.

If I had caught the Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End deletions I would have issued a level 4, not another level 2 like you did. He did the same thing after your warning on another article but the reverter did not issue any warnings. His last edit looked to be a good one, but I am still watching. I can't block without a level 4 being issued. --NrDg 01:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

City Tech Tower

I want to put this image from the daily news website on wikipedia's article about the City Tech Tower can i put it up since it says "Use of this website signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy © Copyright 2007 NYDailyNews.com. All rights reserved." the website link is right here [1] so can it be used. Trulystand700

Look at the image page Image:Signature Tower.png and see if the justifications match what you want to include in the City Tech Tower article. Make sure you include both the license information and the rationale similar to the one that image used and you should be OK. You might wish to get a second opinion at WP:MCQ. --NrDg 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

The article appears to be in good condition. I also made an RFPP request for the article. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 05:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi might slow him down as new sock puppet accounts would have to age before they could be used but it won't stop him long term. --NrDg 05:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alicia Keys

Re: [2]. I see this problem on a few of the Caribbean singers. It always makes me laugh. When I owned a hotel down here (on Bonaire, a little north of Venezuela), I had a guest ask me how much of our local population was "African-American". I told her "None, all the Americans that live on the island are white or Asian. About 89% of the people are black, though."Kww (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, on Buffy, Giles girlfriend was a black brit and everyone wanted to classify her as african-american. People don't think what the words mean. Besides "afro-american" is not correct for anybody. I try to watch out for nationality/ethnicity hijacks in articles. I want to see real strong proof, not just appearance and last names. A lot of people don't appreciate being classified incorrectly and will see the wrong classification as derogatory. I wish we could avoid it all together and just go by what the person says they are and say nothing about it if they say nothing. --NrDg 15:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Talk:Walt Disney page

A few weeks ago there was a discussion initiated by an anon ip about whether to include Walt Disney <derogatory> in the article or not. I know that the info is false and there are no sources to cite it but still a discussion is a discussion. An editor (User:Threeafterthree) deliberately removed comments from the talk page today (see diff)....i restored the comments with an edit summary stating that "pls dont remove others comments" (see diff)...but he deleted those comments again (seediff). Isn't deleting others' comments against wikipedia policies. I know that we can delete obvious libelious material....but here it was a valid discussion which took place on whether or not to include the said statement in the article.Since the anon ip couldnt cite it, it was not included....but is it ok to delete only his/her comments??? ...The above mentioned editor has been uncivil and disruptive before too as is evident from his talk page.....i just wanted ur opinion on this....thanx...Gprince007 (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This was pure libel. This was a bad faith attempt to add this to wiki in some form. It probably should be removed from the edit history as well. Discussion is unnecessary as WP:BLP covers all possible discussions about how to include this type of information in an article and discussion on the discussion page is superfluous. I support removing the comments and I will look at the edit history and may remove them from there as well. --NrDg 16:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for the info....the section has been deleted ....but u said that "It probably should be removed from the edit history as well"....i didnt know that one can remove things from edit history also...anyways i guess that can be done only by an admin....so i guess u shd do it....Thanx again !!!Gprince007 (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I decided not to delete the revisions. If if were that derogatory on a living person I probably would have. Admins can't really delete anything, just hide things a bit. Anything an admin can do can be undone so things don't REALLY go away. Need more tools than admins get to make thing actually go away for good. --NrDg 16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re January 2008

I'm not trying to bust your chops, but A, I have been here for two years so I "dont need the Sandbox to get started" and B, everything on the Hannah Montana page is true. Was even in my local newspaper. Just because you can't deal with the fact that Disney is a crooked subliminal message using company doesn't mean it is a "joke edit". Tyar (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you've been here a while you obliviously know the requirements for references for this type of derogatory information. I therefore assumed it was a joke edit and not the vandalism I originally was going to classify it as. The {{uw-joke1}} standard warning template is a pretty subtle response to your edit. I have no problems with the information if is backed up sufficiently. It would be better placed in the Disney Channel article though as it would apply to all shows, not just this one. --NrDg 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm approaching 3RR on this one

Imaginary album continuously being added: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V_%28Vanessa_Hudgens_album%29&diff=186023727&oldid=186023375

Thanks for any assistance.Kww (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi. You might want to keep an eye on the AFD as well. Apparent sock-puppeting, and attempts to delete my comments on the sock-puppeting as well. Since anons can't vote, is there any problem with semi-protecting that page as well?Kww (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

IPs might want to comment. Just watch and revert vandalism. --NrDg 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging

I tagged those images because they did not have any description of where they came from (i.e. he may have created them, but there was no summary, just licensing (GFDL Self). Even if an image has this tag, I would still think a proper summary stating that the image was created by whomever is appropriate. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not continuing this discussion on my talk page as you ask at the top of this page. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Just like conversations in one place. Moved back to your page and replied there. --NrDg 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Vanessa Hudgens heritage

yo wat fuck is wrong with u she is not from spain she is puerto rican she said it on her myspace dumass bitch if u like spain so mush stick it up your ass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hector Ramos (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you continue this discussion at Talk:Vanessa Anne Hudgens#Heritage. A likely poser myspace is not a reliable reference. Please note that this is an issue of adding derogatory information to an article. --NrDg 17:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kat Deluna age

I graduated with KAT DELUNA AND SHE'S NOT 19... SHE GRADUATED IN THE CLASS OF 2003. SHE ACTUALLY STAyED BACK... SHE'S NO WHERE NEAR 19. I EVEN WENT TO HER SWEET 16 OUR SOPHMORE YEAR... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.91.242 (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Information in the article reflects what the references cited say. We can't take your word on this. If you can back up what you know with references, the article can reflect the reference. When we have conflicting solid references, we will state both and not make a decision on which is right. --NrDg 14:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Miley Cyrus and references

None taken. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk

Didn't think I said anything in approbiate. GPrince expressed his personal view therefore I express my personal view. I felt his comments are hostile there I replied to his own tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by O1001010 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved conversation back to where started. When I add comments to a page I keep it on my watchlist. --NrDg 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus

I just happened on the page and was reviewing the ongoing discussion about her name change. While I appreciate your desire to keep the article well-sourced, I think you are being a little bit over-aggressive in removing the references. A name change to honor her father hardly seems to be contentious or negative information. I also think you are overstating the poor reputation of the source. It's a pretty major media outlet, and the reporter quotes directly from Miley. Notice also that there are a number of well-respected editors who are advocating the inclusion of the references. I personally think you are treading close to 3rr here, and you should have also out-sourced the protection since you are involved in the dispute. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I judged this a bit more of a WP:BLP issue and saw this as adding contentious poorly supported information from a dubious source. It is also negative if false. As such I judged a short protect appropriate. Another reference was found and added so info now well supported. If there had actually been a direct quote in the initial article there would not have been a issue. I appreciate your gentle evaluation of my choices. I should have taken this to WP:RPP and let others decide. --NrDg 14:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus religion issue

I just went thru the entire Talk:Miley Cyrus#Christian section and still dont get it as to why i was seen as a anti-christian by a fellow editor. He said that i made some "offensive statements" about christianity....i dont get it...but if i came across as some anti-christian or some racist fellow then i just want to make it clear that i am neither of them. I never objected to adding of "American christian" categories. The only thing i objected to was the "mention of her religion in the main article" until it affects her in her career or personal life. I justify the use of religion in the main article IF it has influenced the person concerned in a major way. I also gave examples of Madonna,George Bush, Barack Obama, Mahatma Gandhi, George Bush, Mother Teresa,Dalai Lama etc where the mention of their religion is justified because "their belief in their religion and their religious identities shaped their career and ideologies". Miley is too young and her religion has not played a major role yet in her life as compared to famous people mentioned in the prev. sentences. The examples i have given are of people who belong to different faiths, race, religion and nationalities. I deliberately chose these examples so that i'm not branded anti-something again. For the time being i would abide by consensus formed on the talk page which is the way to go on wikipedia.

I read ur message on User talk:O1001010 that's why i thought that i need to clear the air. Once again i wanna clarify that i am not a racist or an anti christian fellow. If i caused any hurt to anyone then i apologize for it. Gprince007 (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see your comments as offensive in any way and I thought they were well reasoned and appropriate to the discussion. As this is a somewhat contentious issue to some people, misunderstanding and offense are a somewhat expected response to even the most intentionally benign neutral statements. It is best for everyone to assume good faith and try to keep the discussion calm or damped down. I think I understand User talk:O1001010's perspective on this and his reasons for reacting as he did. I just wanted everyone to react calmly even when they think they were provoked. I also think it is sometimes appropriate to bend a bit on what you desire in an article sometimes, even when you know you are right and as long as there is no policy issue, to encourage contributions from editors and to promote stability in the article. The religious info was important to this one editor and was reasonably well referenced so there is little harm to having it in the article --NrDg 16:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Platinum, etc.

I understand that these are awards developed by the RIAA... what I mean is, when one says "2x platinum", that automatically indicates that an album has gone multi-platinum. There's no reason to say "2x multi-platinum" because the 2 (or whatever number) shows that the platinum status is multiplied. - eo (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see anywhere within that RIAA link where multi-platinum awards are displayed as "__x multi-platinum". The term "multi-platinum" by itself can mean 2 million or 20 million, whereas "platinum" indicates a specific amount of shipments. Some Hearts by Carrie Underwood is multi-platinum (true). To be more specific, it is 6x platinum (also true). To say "6x multi-platinum" makes no sense. Ultimately it's not that huge of a deal to me, but it reads horribly grammatically incorrect and I've never seen it written in that way anywhere but on a handful of articles here. - eo (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&title=Some%20Hearts&format=ALBUM&go=Search&perPage=25 in the RIAA database. --NrDg 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I still find it to be atrocious grammatically (a multi-platinum award could be for any amount over 2 million), but if you want to copy it literally go for it. Still not sure whether I will let other instances remain, I'll have to think about it. Perhaps in a table its one thing but within prose in the article it should not be worded that way.  :-/ - eo (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)