Pokerdance

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Pokerdance's Archives
July 2009

August 2009 - Edit War Reply

Excuse me i apologise if this sounds round, but i think you need to look at what an edit war is. a WP:edit war is defined as two users who are constantly reverting each others edits. On the Exposed (Kristinia DeBarge album) page i have NOT engaged in an edit war because reverting incorrect edits by another user (yes there were 4 that i was aware of) does not constitute an edit war. if the IP user had reverted them back then yes you would be correct in giving me a warning. Frankly i feel insulted by you leaving me such messages on my discussion page and i dont think it is fair seen that it gives the impression that i am unware of wikipedia rules, that i cannot edit properly and that my editing behaviour is near unacceptable. I would request in the future that you check yourself that you fully understand editing protocol before making such claims. i feel that your motive for doing so my not have been WP:good faith but more to do with the fact that we clashed previously on this article regarding an issue with the way singles are listed in the infobox. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

I know fully well what an edit war is, I have been involved in many, please do not try to educate me. Making four revisions in 24 hours or less is a violation of the WP:3RR, and while there are some exceptions to the rule, being right is not one of them. I know this firsthand, as I was recently blocked for the same mistake you are currently making. I'm not trying to be uncivil or assume bad faith, and I'm not holding any grudges. I just want to warn you about your breach of policy, before you wind up getting a block like I did the other day. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

once again without meaning to be rude i also have been involved in edit wars and know what constitutes to one. please don't try to educate me either because ironically i've been editing much longer than yourself and have learnt the rules through discussion with adminstrators and other experienced users. there are exceptions to the rules, i believed that the IP edits effected the quality of the article hence i reverted them. in heinsight i could have just restored the article to a previous version which is what i will do in the future. if it is any consolation it is almost admirable that you want to warn others about the dangers of edit warring. but i would have appreciated it if you had left me a more subtle warning first because in most cases edit warring involved actions (reverts) from both users. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm not trying to educate you on what an edit war is, you seemed to demonstrate knowledge in your previous comment. I'm just trying to explain to you that being right can still get you blocked if you violate the three-revert rule. And I would have left a more gentle warning so as to not appear as demonstrating bad faith, but 3RR warnings are single-level templates.

Please do not wave around your seniority as an excuse to talk to users in a demeaning tone. It's not only quite disrespectful, but it could be seen as a demonstration of bad faith. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 00:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

of course i didnt mean it like that but what i meant to say was that i have been editing now for a long time i have had past experience with edit wars and so i was quite familiar with the consequences of such and also what constitutes to one. i am sorry if my words offended. i might be a little blunt sometiems but i never do things in bad faith. I really should stop editing at night lol the tiredness makes me lose my sharpness. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Out of context, now

I think anyone reading over our conversations will see that I have assumed good faith with you at all times (and do even now, despite the fact that I will be surprised if you aren't blocked by morning). That was the reason that I advised you of your violation, and gave you a chance to revert your bad edit before it was noticed (not too late for that, BTW: a self-revert goes a long way towards avoiding sanction for 1RR or 3RR violations). I noticed that you seemed to be an editor with good intentions that was a little heavy on the rollback and revert buttons, and tried to advise about it before you wound up blocked. It didn't work. There isn't anyone that will be surprised that I monitor your edits: I keep track of any editors to pop culture articles that are under editing restrictions or blocks that I am aware of. I haven't been uncivil towards you at any time, and I'm sorry that you read it that way.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that restoring to old versions of page history was the same as reverting, but I will keep this in mind in the future. But regardless, there is no point in reverting the edit to Selena Gomez now, since doing so would be a violation of MOS:CAPS#Title. That would only be counter-productive, no? However, from now on, I will remember that manually changing things is the same as reverting. Thank you for making me aware. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 01:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me make a suggestion. Don't undo in any way (revert, rollback, undo or manual) anything anyone else does for a while. Does that make sense? Toddst1 (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion considered and not taken. Forgive me for sounding rude, but your request is ridiculous, especially since I haven't been involved in any edit wars since my unblocking. Furthermore, it's not fair to me on two counts: (1) you're implying that all I'm good for is vandalism around here, and (2) it wasn't a part of our agreement. Your 1RR rule is fine right now. Please don't tack on additional restrictions for no reason. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 06:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about any additional restrictions. That was only a suggestion for you - about as constructive as I can get around here. For some reason, you seem to gravitate towards edit war-like conflicts. I was thinking that perhaps adding new information might be more helpful and less likely to find you in a conflict than reverting or warning or some such. Either way, it's your call.

FWIW, KWW is a pretty smart guy. Toddst1 (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

no subject

You assume So Close is not notable just because it is not on the charts. What is not notable to you is notable to so many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.200.75 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the "So Close" discussion ended on July 21; I don't know where you've been. Secondly, WP:NSONG states:

"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."

Does this song meet any of that criteria? No. It may be notable to some people, but it's not notable enough for inclusion here on this encyclopedia. If you disagree, you should probably state your argument here instead of here. Thank you. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 16:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Selena Gomez, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Also, please do not assume ownership of articles. --Tweetsabird (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to see that you know how to copy and paste. However, I would appreciate it if you didn't demonstrate that knowledge by vandalizing my talk page with unwarranted warnings. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 03:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Pokerdance. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. --Tweetsabird (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't know if you think you're being cute or something, but I really suggest that you stop issuing me warnings that I have legitimately given you. If this continues, you may end up being blocked. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 16:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Pokerdance. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stop copying warnings that I have issued you legitimately, and posting them on my talk page for no reason.

You have no authority, only administators do, but nice try. :) --Tweetsabird (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but quite a few admins are paying attention. Toddst1 (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

For your sake I hope that's not true, it's against the rules to spam other users' pages like you've been doing to me for no reason. --Tweetsabird (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Really now? You can't be serious. The dates that my warnings to you were issued are undeniable proof that you are the one warning me for no reason. It's about time for a final warning for the last unwarranted warning you left here. You should probably quit, because you will be reported if this happens again, and most likely blocked for vandalism. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 02:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you abuse a warning or blocking template, as you did to User talk:Tweetsabird, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Tweetsabird (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I think I might have "accidentally" reported you to WP:AIV for vandalism. ;) POKERdance ^talk/contribs 02:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You've also been reported to WP:AIV for persistent vandalism. --Tweetsabird (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to look that way at the moment, but perhaps you might be doing so later. If you do, just remember that everything on Wikipedia is logged. Your block - if you receive one, which is very likely - just might be extended for causing disruption by making inappropriate AIV reports. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 02:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I Feel Welcomed !

Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. Sorry for responding so late ( i'm still trying to find out how everthing works). I appreciate the comment you made about Jaws. I hope to contribute new knowledge to Wikipedia. Esb94 (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Miley Cyrus & Hannah Montana

I have seen how you've edited articles that relate to Miley Cyrus and Hannah Montana. I am proposing a WikiProject for any article pertaining to the actress, singer and songwriter Miley Cyrus, as well as for the franchise, Hannah Montana. A majority of these articles (ex: "Who Said", Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus and Miles to Go) are lacking sources, images, description and more. They can and should be expanded. I am proposing this WikiProject so that any collaborators may work on the articles pertaining to the singer/franchise, the goal being to bring them up to a FA and GA status on Wikipedia. To sign up, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Miley Cyrus & Hannah Montana --Ipodnano05 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Max Bollinger

He has used his language skills to make a crossover from writing to acting and voicework, but has apparently returned to books of late... but now in audio format. Care to help me dig to see if his books have received favorable reviews? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

BDR

Congrats! Wonderful work on the article. It just needs the background, then you can even nominate it for GA! There are some pointers if you would like to take. References should have the author name, date of work, work and publisher names. The music video image might fail WP:NFCC#8 also. The article needs categories also. Don't worry, I'll add it as I go. Again, wonderful job. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Background is covered in "Music and lyrics," and I just finished adding categories. Also, I think that the image gives readers an idea of what part of the music video looks like. Regardless, thank you for your compliments! I worked very hard on the article. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 04:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the image is fairly describable by words. I would vote to keep the image myself though. Also I will format the references for you. Again, wonderful job and your hard work will pay-off at GA. You are planning to nominate it aren't you? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. With your help, I know this article will turn out great. I am about to nominate it now. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 04:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

All done. Good luck with the GAR. Ping me back if you need to find anything more for the article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The article will need info about the Live performance. You can get it from Fame Ball tour article and the singles where the links for the AOL sessions are there. Free image will be available from the commons. Ping back if you cannot find it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Red and Blue (Lady Gaga EP)

I'm sorry for the re-edition at Red and Blue EP page. I didn't realize this was that illegal and so, it's better that way. Apologies. ~~ Lucasrsouza

Articles for deletion nomination of Lady Gaga as gay icon

I have nominated Lady Gaga as gay icon, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga as gay icon. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oploading ogg files

I saw how you uploaded File:Lady Gaga - Beautiful Dirty Rich.ogg and I was wondering if you could tell me how to upload these types of files for the singles from Hannah Montana 3 and for "Party in the USA". Please reply. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Download a program called Audacity, then open up the MP3s for each song with that program. Select preferably 10% or less of the song but no more than 30 seconds. Use the time-shift tool so that you can pick a certain portion of the song. Press CTRL+C and then start a new project with Audacity. Go to Project > New Stereo Track. Press CTRL+V and then save the project as an Ogg Vorbis file. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 21:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. But I do not think that I can do so because I do not own a computer and cannot download any programs because I am not allowed to. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but if you own "Party in the U.S.A.", could you please make a sample file for the song (if you can). Please reply. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't own that song, sorry. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 01:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you anyways. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Live performance

If you check the sources for the critical receptions present in the Fame Ball tour article, they have little by little accounts about Gaga's performance of the song on the tour. The main image from the bio article is the performance of BDR on the tour. You can probably couple up the chart performance and live performance together to warranty a bulky section. Its permitable in GA. Also I just reverted some of your change in The Fame article. As we have explained before, not everyone watches with the same browser settings and elongating the infobox will cause problem for them. Also Cherrytree Sessions fails notability as an album, it is defined as an EP only since only three songs and < 25 mins timeplay. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's definitely not Paparazzi. Believe me, I went to the Fame Ball tour. Paparazzi was always performed inside the metal plates and Lovegame with the discostick. I guess the uploader made a mistake. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You won't find exact description. but you can enhance on the choreography, dress and performance by taking it from the description of other performances which were critically reviewed. Also decription of the performance like music video doesnot need to be heavily cited since it is just commentary and not third party review. If you want I can add the info. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Good job! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Name of actor in "Eh, Eh..." video

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that source number thirty for the article doesn't list an actor who portrayed the main male role in the music video for "Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I can say). I don't have a verifible source for this but I know the actor and his name's John Markoudakis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antjcar86 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Source for actor name

Oh La La Mag is a great source for the name of the actor in the video. It's located here: http://www.ohlalamag.com/en/2009/02/lady-gagas-boyfriendjohnny-markoudakis.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antjcar86 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

UK Compilations chart

Please explain to me how you figure this is referencing the supposed "UK Compilations Chart - I am certain that Zobbel sources the UK Albums and UK Singles Charts only. Just because it says it's a soundtrack - does not mean it's on a special Compilations Chart (does this chart even exist?). Anyway that whole lead needs a re-write, no need to mention a Compilations chart when the releases have been prominent on official national charts. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm basing my information off of Hannah Montana (soundtrack), where I got that information. The source and the charting info on that article seem to match up, which makes it seem to be correct. If you can find a source that says it charted on the UK Albums Chart and not the Compilations chart, add it, but you can't remove information on the basis that you are "certain" about something. That is called original research, which isn't allowed. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 22:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What? No it's not. That's called checking the actual source. That whole page is listing the results for the UK Albums Chart and UK Singles Chart. Wikipedia should never be used as a source, and definitely should not be used to interpret a source ahead of actual verification. Now I have done a little research (no... not original research) that has said compilations albums are not featured on the UK Albums Chart - however, then i realized, how is this even a compilation album? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Then change it to UK Albums Chart, I guess. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 03:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to go adjust the sourcing guide. It's clearly on the compilation chart, per http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/compilations.shtml . Apparently Zobbel is blurring the charts. Per chartstats.com, the only Hannah Montana album that has ever made the official UK album chart is "Best of Both Worlds".—Kww(talk) 03:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Won't have to adjust anything. The sourcing guide doesn't recommend using Zobbel, and the Basic CLUK Rules at http://www.zobbel.de/ clearly state that it includes the compilation chart.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Perhaps however, just because a song is played on the radio before it is avaliable for purchase, that should not count as a release because the product is unavaliable at that time. I am going to bring this up at the discussion page for Eh, Eh to see what other editors think. • вяαdcяochat 10:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't even get why we have to go to discussion over this. Single infobox template suggests to go with the earliest date, and despite it not being available for purchase, December 13 was its earliest date. Whatever, though. If you really think a discussion is necessary, then I'd like to see what other editors think. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 10:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I however do see a point in discussion. Read release (music) which defines it. It states "the event at which an album or single is first offered for sale in record stores." I may not be correct when it comes to this issue though. That is why I have brought it up at the talk page. • вяαdcяochat 10:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture edit

May I ask why removing a bad picture of someone on their wikipedia page is considered vandalism? I did not attempt to compromise the integrity of wikipedia, in fact I attempted to expand the integrity of Wikipedia by removing a bad picture of somebody. Tell me, how does having a picture of somebody taken when they weren't looking and making them look like they're on drugs add anything to the article?

Matcat1116 (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles about schools don't get deleted [1]

What is the basis for that claim? WWGB (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A7, note how it says "except schools." Also see WP:SCHOOL, which was a failed notability guideline. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 06:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD#A7 applies only to speedy deletion, it is not applicable to proposed deletion. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education provides that school articles may be deleted if they fail verifiability, which is so far the case here. Anyway, let's see what the AfD decides. Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Party in the U.S.A.

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Party in the U.S.A., without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 03:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I didnt delete content or templates. My edits do have comments. U just have a problem bc someone else is editing. This is wikipedia. Rememeber the rule is : If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Any text that you did not write yourself (apart from brief citations) must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you use it. 70.108.112.176 (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with it because you unnecessarily removed content, which is considered vandalism and isn't tolerated around here. I believe that message applies to you as well; you shouldn't have removed content if you didn't want it being reverted. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 03:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Content I removed was already in the article, it isnt supposed 2 be there twice. There was no vadalism. The message doesnt apply 2 me bc my edits r valid. 70.108.112.176 (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Leads are supposed to reiterate the main details from the article. That's why content is in there twice. You are also unnecessarily removing other content and this will not be tolerated. You may be reported and/or blocked if you continue. Your edits are also not valid, they remove content unnecessarily, which is considered vandalism. I advise you gain consensus before removing large chunks from that article again. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 03:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You are unneccesarily reverting b/c you want your version to stand since you made the page. Get an outisde neutral person to review the page. I am not vandalising, you are. 70.108.112.176 (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying not to have content in the article twice. However, you are using that as justification for removing content in the lead, and per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." That is why some content repeats, and I don't think that you should be removing content from it as it is considered vandalism. Also, the comments that you are making on Talk:Party in the U.S.A. that I do not know what I am doing are unacceptable. That is both an assumption of bad faith and a personal attack. Editors get blocked for that kind of incivility. Also, linking to a screengrab of a copyrighted television program, especially when the taker of the photo is violating FOX's copyright, is not acceptable and you might be blocked if you keep re-adding that link in. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 03:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been advised to longer post/ discuss with you until a neutral experience editor intervenes. Post on the discussion page & help desk pages, not to me. Thanks. 70.108.112.176 (talk)

Infobox changed reply

Actually I believe the song was never used as a single, though intended to be. Hence BDR became the promo song for the DSM soap. The lady gaga.com discography page gives us the list of releases, whether as a single or song is not listed there. Hence the only notability of it is gained as a song only. That is why I changed the infobox. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Even I also believe that it was a promotional single. However, Gaga's site lists it as one of the official releases, not as a single release (I checked it again). So, question is how do we know whether its a single release? Answer is search in the news or any other verifiable source. I searched, but found that BDR is listed only as the song used for DSM soap. So, I believe BDR can be listed as an extremely notable song. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest numbers from UNICEF 2008 report

I have added latest information using references from the UNICEF 2008 report.

could you pls explain is there is any problem, thanks. Fkfjdf (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

I was wondering if you would like to contribute towards I Miss You (Miley Cyrus song) in order to achieve it into GA class. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Discogs

As per MOS:DISCOG#Citations_and_references discogs are unreliable. however I find their MoS as contradicting because ultimately they have said that it can be used in the EL. however WP:EL avoids any kind of unreliable sources especially user entered sites because of copyright vio. I propose to bring this issue into the MoS Talk for Discography because a lot of articles really use this website for EL. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Chill.

I realize you're excited about being a Wikipedia editor and are trying to help, but what you added to my page was unfounded. I did not add unsourced or poorly researched information to a page, I simply posed a question pertaining to possibly expanding and enhancing an existing Wikipedia article based on assertions by the person in question herself. The same line of questioning still exists on the talk page. Based on your talk page, I see you've had a few issues with other editors, recently. I don't mean to add to that, as I can tell your heart is in the right place. I don't expect, require, or want a reply. Go edit, and focus on articles, not talk pages. Hrhadam (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Miley Cyrus#Racism

Hello, Pokerdance. Would you rejoin this discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Kylie

Every single genre at the genres section was provided by Allmusic !!it's just that there were too many links to each Kylie album and they were deleted! The genres that you provided have no source! you just believe that it's that way??? I recomed you to go and search each Kylie album at Allmusic to find out more. About the genres, Wikipedia does not say that there is a limit in how nany should be added, if an artist has done 100 different genres they will all be added!(MariAna Mimi 08:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

You know, leaving messages like "Do not revert my edits again without valid reason" as you did here and here is generally considered very bad form. Many folks would consider it Wikipedia:WikiBullying. Whether you're right or not isn't important here, it's how you're engaging with others. I think you need change that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1, it's not bullying. Maybe it wasn't in the best of faith, but it certainly wasn't bullying. The other user provided no reason for reverting my edits which essentially regarded them as vandalism which made me very angry. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 19:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I know you weren't saying anything about me vandalizing. I'm saying that MariAna Mimi was implying that I was by initially reverting with no edit summary, and is now continuing to do so by assuming bad faith here and at Kylie Minogue. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 20:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Will you please STOP deleting the genres!? why are there too many? because you think so? they have all been sourced + the genres that you listed are not even right! (MariAna Mimi 20:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

You say that they are not right, but they come from the same reference you are using. Just because Allmusic lists all of those genres, it does not mean that every single one should be listed. Doing so would make the list entirely too long. Instead of leaving bad faith messages on my talk page and edit warring, why don't you discuss at Talk:Kylie Minogue? POKERdance ^talk/contribs 20:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Kylie has tried many genres, so why do you believe that they should not be listed and only the ones that you provide?? as i said before there is no limit about how many genres should be listed (MariAna_Mimi)

I am going to leave it the way you left it, for now, and i will add sources from Allmusic proving all those genres, btw: the link that you provided does not link to anything that shows the genres that you believe that are correct. (MariAna Mimi 20:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

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

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

Orphaned non-free image File:Jonas Brothers - Fly with Me.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jonas Brothers - Fly with Me.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga discography

Hello. I have edited Lady Gaga discography to restore contentious writer-only credits, with comments at the talk page. As a previous contributor, you may wish to reply to my points or otherwise continue the discussion. Cheers, --Peter Farago (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lady Gaga - Fashion.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lady Gaga - Fashion.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hannah Montana discography

The article Hannah Montana discography has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Recently, Ipodnano05 merged the discography as Hannah Montana into that of Miley Cyrus. This article now seems a bit unnecessary. I personally suggest it be redirected to Miley Cyrus discography for now, and maybe in the future it could be expanded on and become similar to the Glee Cast discography, focusing mainly on the franchise itself. But for now, it seems like List of Hannah Montana songs covers the songs, while the Miley Cyrus discography covers the releases.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ℥^nding·start 19:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

File:BDR Video.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BDR Video.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BDR Video.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BDR Video.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2014 (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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lady Gaga - BDR Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lady Gaga - BDR Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)