User talk:Kww/11012010

Endless sockpuppeting[edit]

Ciao! I have identified another sockpuppet of user:Gladys Tuffnell, precisely user:Kay McCallum. Can you eliminate it as it's continuing the stupid revertions in Ferrol, Spain. Thanks and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attilios seems under attack now from several IPs. [1] [2] [3] [4] Can you address this? EEng (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONGS[edit]

Well I didn't think that it would be "that" big of a deal to have the article up six hours prior to the charts being released. I also feared that soon as it would chart, the article would be bombarded with fancruft. Candyo32 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock advice[edit]

Hi there! Could you have a look the thread on my talk page (User_talk:Ged_UK#Talk:Disney.27s_House_of_Mouse) about the possibility of some sort of range block. They're a bit of a closed book to me i'm afraid, and I know you've got a handle on them. Thanks. Ged UK 12:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request[edit]

I thought I had better check with you about this request. Chzz ► 12:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially as the user is re-factoring a previous request that came from Bepanthenplus (talk · contribs) who is blocked as a Brexx sock. Chzz ► 13:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and, as I typed that, I then noticed you'd blocked it. OK. Sorry I missed it when I did the earlier request on Talk:If I Never See Your Face Again - but that request did check out with the actual billboard source, so...well, anyway - sorry if I did anything wrong. Chzz ► 13:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Familiar looking?[edit]

Yeah, there's something unsettling about McYel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but it's not jumping out at me. I don't think Bambifan was into the images so much. There's another editor who was, but I can't place the username. The edit summaries on the talk page comments where he adds the images, plus the quotes, are somewhere between cute snarkiness and dissent. I've got his talk page on my watch list, that's for sure. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL...I am NOT the "Disney Anon" :))[edit]

Bambifan? User:Bambifan101/User:Iluvteletubbies/User:Sjakoj/Junglebook2hater/65.0.181.192(READ THIS...[5]) is NOT User:McYel/72.178.5.68/me! --McYel (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Sndpsingh23 sockpuppets[edit]

Hi Kevin,

I saw that you handled Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sndpsingh23/Archive, and I have some more information in that case, originally discovered over at Commons. There are several more socks involved in this case, as shown by these links:

The accounts listed in the last link also exist here on English Wikipedia:

Shrikrishna 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sndpsingh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sumdaso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sumdasoavi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sumdasoavina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sumdasoavinam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All socks except Sumdaso are active here, with edits during the last month.

I wasn't quite sure where to take this info, so if there's a more appropriate way to bring this up, please let me know. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

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

SpigotMap 17:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Labor Pains[edit]

Hi Kww, I see you reverted my edit, holding that edit request was from banned user Brexx. Well', I'm not familiar with them; however, I think Butthesilvermoon (talk · contribs) may be another sock, given this section. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another one 86.96.226.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not bothering you (and I hope I'm not becoming paranoid), but a new user, Jwfrancais (talk · contribs) made an edit request on an article protected because of Brexx. I've assumed good faith and done it, but a second opinion won't hurt. ^__^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thread on AN/I[edit]

I'm not certain, but given the potential for disaster with such information, I believe you should immediately apply for oversight by e-mail and ask a commons admin to delete the files from commons and/or a wikipedia admin to revdel the additions from the user page. Please don't bring this to AN/I again though, as it receives heavy traffic and further attention should not be brought to this. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI,

Done. The user page has been oversighted by Alison (talk · contribs · rights · renames). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:/* User:McYel responds to User:Alison, User:Crazycomputers, and admins */[edit]

I don't want to ever have to look at the noticeboards again. I looked at it, I read it as an allegation of serious crime against a named person (or at least negative discussion of a living person) and I thought that, even if I'm reading it wrong, it could be damaging. Better to delete and be safe. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venzuelan Singles Chart[edit]

Hi, the Venezuelan Singles Charts are 200 positions. This page from the chart says: "Subjects whose rise is more than four positions, in the current week, in the general classification (Top 200)".--J7y (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

help needed[edit]

Ciao! this 80.117.138.54 unnamed guy is keeping reverting the original name of Sant'Anthony of Padua Basilica to Sant'Antonio diPadova, where in Italy saints and people are called "Da" (see for example the church's Italian article). Let me know. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the Ferrol jerk has returned as user:Claire Wynn. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you check at his/her user page, you'll see the style is the same then all the others sockpuppets. And of course the main clue is the endless revertion of Ferrol, Spain to that pre-wikified version and the fact he/she devotes esclusively to Galician themes. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! thanks for the kind attentions and good work! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ferrol sockpuppet struck again! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Round & Round[edit]

I thought WP:3RR applied to edit warring, which I am not involved in warring with another editor of a particular edit. Candyo32 (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm just supposed to let unsourced/non-applicable information stay on the article? Candyo32 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little alarm bell went off[edit]

What do you think of this? [6] I can't help but think it's him [7] or even him. [8] Thoughts? - eo (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI[edit]

Just so you know, we are no longer using "spiclose" as we have overhauled the system over there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brazil and WP:BADCHARTS[edit]

Actually, it's not just the singles chart. All charts from hot100brasil.com are removed on sight, as are charts sourced to billboard.com.br. The charts at ABPD and the actual Billboard Brasil magazine are good. You need to be careful to supply sources, because unsourced Brazilian chart positions are usually removed.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. The source i provided belonged to ABPD. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Tuffjerk[edit]

Thanks! but why not to block endlessly Gladys Tuffnel? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message on her Talk says indef, but the message on her Userpage said "for a period of time" (I think that message was left over from an earlier block). Block log says "indefinite", so I changed the Userpage message to say "indef" too. (BTW I'm not an admin, just helping out. Hope I did this right.) EEng (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Dream[edit]

You're an administrator. If you believe the article is good enough to move, then move it. (I'll tell you, I certaintly I think it's OK to move, even to the page Teenage Dream!) PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about discussion at Talk:Katy Perry? That would be the best concentration of interested editors. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Zero use of edit summary, coupled with prior block history and warnings (see the warnings at the user's talk page, in multiple sections) plus the unsourced changes to infobox, unsourced addition of categories, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

I turn to you as you have been there through all the history with Petergriffin9901, and it seems he respects your opinion. In the article Merry Christmas, Petergriffin9901 wrote that it is the most successful Christmas album of all time and added this source.[9]

I have started to talk with him but it is as always - no chance to compromise. Here is my explanation:

1. The source from November 2009 - Carey's official website says: ""All I Want For Christmas is You" was the leading single from Mariah's 1994 Merry Christmas album, selling 11 million copies worldwide on it's way to becoming one of the best selling Christmas album of all time!"[10]

2. Petergriffin9901's source is older - Foxnews.com from March 2008. It does not explain what does it mean "most successful". Merry Christmas did not win any awards, did not peak the highest on the charts and did not sell the most.

3. As Billboard is saying, Elvis Presley has sold 12 million copies of his album in the U.S. alone.[11] Carey has sold 11 million worldwide.

4. No serious source says that "Merry Christmas" is the best selling/most successful Christmas album in the world. However it is definitely one of the best selling Christmas albums and as Wasted Time R said last year "Just say that Merry Christmas was commercially successful and leave it at that".

5. If it would have been the best selling/most successful, Carey's label would have remind it to us every chanse they would get.

6. It is not even the best selling Christmas album in the U.S. which is her market where she was most popular (she's #8).[12]

7. And one more thing: Petergriffin9901 links to "Bestselling Christmas/holiday albums in the United States" article but changes the text to "most successful Christmas album of all time". He also added his claim to the U.S. albums article.

So I would like to leave it as "one of the best selling" or "one of the most successful" but not the most successful as it is not true. Max24(talk)09:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Response[edit]

Okay, so here is my logic to the issue. First of all Max, you didn't look to compromise just to revert my edit. But enough about that, I would like to keep the peace, Ill just explain.

1. Mariah Carey's website is not that reliable. Its NOT an independent source, meaning it cannot be trusted to represent her sales accurately. You yourself have admitted that before, but now you don't simply because they list her sales lower. If Carey's website listed "Daydream's" sales at 30 million worldwide, Max would certainly make an excuse about how it could not be trusted as they inflate sales and its not an independent source and not reliable. Only now because they list her sales a tad lower, you all of a sudden, trust them and want to stick with their listings.

2. I understand what your saying regarding Fox news claiming "The most successful" so I found a more reliable and specific source. This source by The Independent is reliable and was even trusted to represent Madonna's worldwide sales on her FA status article. This source actually states "The best-selling Christmas album of all time". This solves the issue you mentioned of not being specific.

3. Your other issue is that Elvis' album sold 12, so if Carey's sold 11 its not possible. Well here is my answer. Carey's website lists her sales at 11 million, but I have 2 independent and reliable sources claiming her sales at 12 million. They are better since they are independent sources. Also your only logic really is not "Carey's website says 11", or else I'd maybe say, "Well he believes it to be more reliable". Thats not the case Max, your logic is simply, "Well if Carey's own website (who must inflate her sales) lists it at 11, it for sure is 11 or possibly less". Thats not a proper approach, "Because a Carey fan says 175, it must for sure be lower because they will for sure inflate, so its not possible to be 200". That's your logic, and its by far not a concrete one. Here are the two reliable independent sources 1 and 2.

4. I have already answered #4 with my "The Independent" source.

5. I have already answered that. That kind of logic "if this, then that would for sure" is not reliable or meaningful, its just because there really is no concrete reason.

6. The US is not Carey's main market. She has shipped only 63 million albums in the US, and over 112 or 137 (depending on what her label claims, or countless reliable sources) around the world, equaling either 175 or over 200 million records sold worldwide. Dion has I believe, almost the same retribution, 50 something million in the US, and the rest worldwide (140 ish). As you see its not that the US is her main market, but the US buys more albums in comparison to other countries as is relevant in Dion, Madonna and Carey's sales.

Secondly, this source is almost 2 years old, where it lists Carey at #8 in the US. This source, which is simply 1 year newer, lists Carey's US sales at #3, because Carey's Holiday album sells handsomely each year. Forget that though, in reality her album could sell 0 in the US and still be #1 worldwide, so that really doesn't make a damn difference.

7. I linked it the the "Best-selling in the US" article, simply because there is a small section in the article that lists the best-selling in the world. Thats all.

8. In reality, I have a very reliable source claiming its the "Best-selling Christmas album of all time", Max has nothing to counter other than crappy logic, regarding "If her website says this, it must be less because they for sure inflate her sales".

I would like to list it as "The best-selling Christmas album of all time", alongside it selling 12 million copies worldwide because that is what 2 reliable independent sources indicate.--PeterGriffin • Talk 00:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean "most successful"? Is it "best selling"? If it does, Carey's album is not "most successful". Even if she would sell 12 million copies worldwide, Elvis sold 12 million in one country only - U.S. With sales from other countries, Elvis is way ahead of Carey. Dion has also sold between 12 and 15 million of her Christmas album, as various sources are saying. However the article says: "These Are Special Times is one of the best selling Christmas albums".

I trust oficial websites/labels. If they would say Carey has sold 200 million albums or Daydream is at 30 million I would add it myslef to the articles.

Even the updated source you gave lists Carey at #3 in the U.S.: Kenny G's Miracles-The Holiday Album (7,215,000), Celine Dion's These Are Special Times (5,123,000), Mariah Carey's Merry Christmas (5,048,000).

The label would never lower artist sales numbers, it's not in their interest.

Kww, what's your opinion? Is Merry Christmas "most successful" or "one of most successful"? Max24(talk) 09:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Second Response[edit]

First of all Max, let me answer you.

1. I already gave you a source actually saying "Best-selling", so your arguement of "Most successful" or anything else doesn't apply.

2. Secondly, Dion's album did not sell 15 million copies. If you were able to find "reliable sources" (and I don't mean SuperiorPics or some photo site) claiming 15M for her, you can be sure as hell Max would have placed it in the article. That being said, Dion's album sold 11-12.

3. You logic doesn't make any sense, just because Dion's sold 100K more in the US makes it more successful? US has nothing to do with Worldwide sales.

4. Lastly, your inquiry about Elvis selling 12 million in the US alone. Hmmm, seems concrete, however that'll change, check this out. The article does not specify whether or not his album sold 12 in the US or worldwide, so we have to make guesses. According to the RIAA site, his album is certified 9x Platinum in the US, so that is what we can officially go by. Now your concerned with the rest of the world. Now you mentined that Carey is mostly a US artist (an untrue claim), well Elvis is certainly a US only artist, hear these facts. Look here, Elvis has 176.6 million abums certifications in the US and only 12.6 million in the rest of the world. You don't think its possible that Elvis' Christmas album sold in the range of 9 million in the US, and 3 million in the rest of the world (a full quarter of his weak worldwide sales)? Its extremely probable! that is no doubt the way it went, the article is listing the albums worldwide sales not its US sales as it does for Carey and Dion.--PeterGriffin • Talk 11:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I just checked, the article actually agrees with me. It says his album has sold 12 million (unspecified), then it says 9 million in the US. That completely goes on what I said before.--PeterGriffin • Talk 11:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If These Are Special Times sold 12 million copies and Merry Christmas 11 million (or even 12 million), how can the second one be "best selling"? Max24(talk)12:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few responses for that.

1. One, on Wikipedia, we do not go by math and adding up sales, we go by the word of refutable and reliable sources. If we didn't who knows the kinds of drastic changes in sales pages like "Thriller", "Michael Jackson", "The Beatles" or "Elvis" would experience. Its not about adding up sales, certifications or any of the above, its what we can readily prove and back up.

2. Secondly, where is your reliable source that "These are Special Times" has even sold 12 million? The source I see in the article is "Famouspeople.com". Im not going to go as far as saying its a blog or a page created by a 12 year old, but it is not reliable and seems like a less popular version of IMDB. So you don't even have real proof it sold 12.

3. But lets say you did, lets say the sources say 12 for both, does that make them 100% equal, like 12.576 million? Absolutely not!, Carey's could be 12.456 and Dion's could be 12.234 million.

Kevin, if you have any questions, doubts or interests, please let me now and Ill do my best to explain my case.--PeterGriffin • Talk 12:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard's editor Paul Grein article says: "Elvis Presley still has the most popular holiday album of all time. Elvis' Christmas Album, originally released in 1957, has sold more than 12 million copies, allowing it to beat out Kenny G's 1994 smash Miracles-A Holiday Album." and "Elvis Presley, Elvis' Christmas Album, 12,000,000. It has sold 9,000,000 copies, per the RIAA." And if the differance between Dion and Carey is small, Carey's album should be named "one of the best selling" and not the best one.Max24(talk)12:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again a few answers.

1. You yourself just wrote that Paul wrote "Most popular", that doesn't mean "Best-selling", as far as Im concerned, I don't even know what that claim means. Just as you don't understand what "The most successful album" means, I don't understand what "The most popular album" means.

2. Again, Paul doesn't say anything about more sales than anyone, just ppopularity which means nothing, thats just his opinion. Your not telling me anything new or factly.

3. Again you have no proof of it having sold more than 12 million copies, no article in the world tells us 12+9=21 worldwide, do they? So again were back to square 1 with you, except now your just wasting my time because you don't even have a new measly source, just your claims and thoughts.--PeterGriffin • Talk 12:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Rowland Discography[edit]

Hi Kevin, I'm trying to promote Kelly Rowland discography to FL status. Its something I've never worked on but I've had a steep learning curve to correct the issues. Its in pretty good nick at the moment though I accept that currently the music videos are not sourced (i.e. the directors). I've searched hard using various internet tools but a lot of her earlier videos are hard to find sources for. I've noticed in other FL discogs like Pink discography people have put MTV and VH1 links for music videos but neither links show the directors - only just directly linking to the music video itself. Could you advise me on how I can source the videos? Or anything else that the discog is missing please? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no problem. I just thought you might now a website that provides a good source etc. Thanks anyway. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey Discussion[edit]

Hi Kevin, I would appreciate you input here, so we can finally reach a consensus. Thanks :).--PeterGriffin • Talk 01:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting admin assistance[edit]

Kww,

Wehwalt suggested that I contact you [13] regarding an AN/I case [14]. There’s a disruptive editor who was given an indefinite block last month (June AN/I thread, resulting in the block, is here:[15]). Documented conduct problems for this user include (but are not limited to) severe wikihounding of multiple editors, abusive sockpuppetry, block evasion, uncivil (in the extreme – perpetual demeaning language), trolling (e.g. attempting to instigate edit wars among other editors, etc.), vandalism, and miscellaneous covert maneuvers to thwart administrative action (e.g. forging admin signature). And, as people have noted, the user has shown no desire to reform despite being given ample opportunities.

After laying low for a couple weeks, he started up again (wikistalking one of his usual targets, Centpacrr) via a new sock account (Filmcracker) and an anonymous IP (which he’d used previously in his disruptive editing). A new AN/I thread was started on July 13 (by Centpacrr), requesting a block on these sock accounts (see new thread here [16]). A community ban proposal was soon made (by another editor), eight editors have weighed in, all fully supporting and none opposed (and the majority of editors commenting have no personal history of conflict with this user). The user in question summarily deleted the two notices (about AN/I) posted at the Filmcracker talk page, left a note on the talk page of the editor who initiated the thread calling him a crank, crackpot, and kook, and has provided absolutely no response at AN/I. The AN/I thread has now been sitting unclosed (with no comments from new editors) for a couple days, despite requests for admin closure (and no admin response to the request “what (if any) further evidence or comments are needed to obtain the necessary administrative action.”). The user continues to roll merrily along with his edits to various articles (though a previously uninvolved editor – Rockstone – has volunteered to revert them).

Wehwalt felt that he shouldn’t be a closing admin on this, since he has prior involvement in trying to deal with this user’s conduct, and has previously expressed frustration with him. He suggested that I contact you. I’d be happy to provide any further information/evidence you feel is needed. Thanks. Eurytemora (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much Kww.

I’ve tried to compile the list you requested. It’s somewhat difficult, since he’s edited many articles. I’ve tried to break things down into categories, so you can include what you see fit.

Articles that he’s recently disruptively edited, or where (for one reason or another) I think there’s especially high potential for him to try to cause conflicts: The High and the Mighty (film), Stephen Ambrose, LZ 129 Hindenburg, Central Pacific Railroad, Transcontinental railroad, Penobscot River, Penobscot Bay, Time Zone, 1860 Republican National Convention, St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao, Feature film, Silent film, Wurlitzer , University of Wisconsin–Madison, Ed Gein

Articles that he’s edited repeatedly, and where he’s likely to return: German American, List of German Americans, Demographic estimates of the flight and expulsion of Germans,Genealogy, Comparison of genealogy software,The Catholic Times, German Catholics, Stratford, Connecticut, Janesville, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Hoofers, Paul Ryan (politician),Midwestern United States

He’s very prone to go after articles about counties and towns in Wisconsin (and has been quite problematic at various of these). However, the list of such articles would be voluminous, so I’m not including them.

I think he’s also very likely to go after any article that Centpacrr has edited recently. So I’m including a list of some of the more attractive targets (that Centpacrr has edited in the last couple months): Second Bank of the United States,Charles Lindbergh, Spirit of St. Louis,Hindenburg class airship, Hindenburg disaster,Pan American World Airways,Wiley Post, Railway post office,First Transcontinental Railroad,Franking,Daniel Webster,Broadway Limited,Overland Route (Union Pacific Railroad)

I think the above list only gives perhaps 20% coverage, but it covers the material where he’s disproportionately likely to prove problematic. Also, for many of these, if he can’t edit the article directly, he’s likely to try to stir up trouble on the article’s talk page (he’s very skilled at that).

If you want a more comprehensive list of articles he’s repeatedly edited (as opposed to the select list above), let me know (for example, as I mentioned above, I haven’t included all the WI county and town articles he tends to go after – where he’s really been a PITA for other editors).Eurytemora (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey[edit]

Hello Kevin, I already previously asked you to take a look and input yoour opinion on the pages discussion. But it has gotten rough and out of hand, and people aren't listening to logic and reason. Please read the discussion and help. Admin guidance is really needed. Edit war and nonsense is taking place. I stopped reverting, please just get involved. Thanks--PeterGriffin • Talk 16:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have new messages

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

WP:RS/N[edit]

Hello Kww, I posted a query at the reliable sources noticeboard today (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_70#DJbooth.net) and User:Wehwalt suggested I ask you, as someone "knowledgable in the field". I would appreciate your input. Thanks, --Beloved Freak 19:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou.--Beloved Freak 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested[edit]

I see you've posted at (what appears to be) a non-english speaker's talk page. I may need your assistance in assessing their talk page statements if they decide they want to contribute in the future. Did their edits appear good faith to you? I only ask because they have acted in a disruptive manner and that may be a mistaken POV on my part. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Tiderolls 19:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin[edit]

Hello Kevin, I see you are a sysop now. Pity I missed the nomination page in which my name was also mentioned. Don't worry though I would have voted you this time hadn't I miss it. I think you're doing a good job. Good luck. Cheers. Meursault2004 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk5384[edit]

I decided not to indef him, because with his history, there was no chance an unblock would ever be granted. I upped it to 6 months, though, in the hopes that would improve matters later. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sift&Winnow????[edit]

What's the evidence for this sockblock? I'm not seeing it in the contributions. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see any evidence in that discussion that this (currently inactive) editor belonged anywhere on that list. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kww and OrangeMike.

He's the same user as Filmcracker, Techwriter2B, 64.252.0.159, 75.2.209.226, and a bunch of other IPs. See here [17] for the earlier AN/I thread (and, if needed, I can provide much additional detail on the identity of these sock accounts - the link isn't tenuous at all). He shifted topics somewhat under his Filmcracker ID, apparently to try to disguise his identity, after I delineated his patterns (including his favorite article topics) in the earlier AN/I thread (and Centpacrr, his perennial target, had recently heavily focused on editing The High and the Mighty (film), so taking on the Film-focused ID presumably looked like a good tactic to use in going after Centpacrr's edits on that article). Eurytemora (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I can give voluminous additional detail – but I’ll just point out that a CU in a sock investigation (not directly related to Sift&Winnow) found that Sift&Winnow had also edited as anonymous IP 64.252.140.1 (localizing to Stratford CT area, as do all the other IP accounts, including 75.2.209.226, etc.). When the IP sock identity was publicly revealed (due to the CU), Sift&Winnow immediately stopped using his registered account, and subsequently exclusively edited via anonymous IPs (all localizing to Stratford CT area) until registering as Techwriter2B. Also, prior to registering as Sift&Winnow, he appears to have exclusively used anonymous IPs.Eurytemora (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Also, I’ll mention that Sift&Winnow drew complaints of being a disruptive editor (e.g. see one such comment in the June AN/I thread) and remarks about stalking of edits (even though I think he was somewhat better behaved when posting under that username than when he chose to post anonymously). Also, there probably aren’t that many people in the Stratford CT area heavily editing large numbers of WP articles about WI and especially about obscure WI counties and towns (for a start Sift&Winnow [18]; 75.2.209.226 [19]), with heavy overlap on many other topics as well (articles about Germany/German-Americans, Catholicism, genealogy, etc.). Here’s a 2008 sock investigation into the IPs [20], where this user claimed that only the 12.76.*.* belonged to him, but where it was clear that he was also posting under 68.198.217.105 and 69.120.182.161, and then apparently tried to forge an admin signature using 64.252.28.1, to try to stop the investigation (again, I’ll note that all these IPs localize to Stratford CT area). The favored article topics and editing style are retained across the various IDs/IPs. Again, if desired, I can provide large amounts of additional documentation of the common identity of this user across all the accounts under discussion.Eurytemora (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RoyalBroil suggested I contact you since you are the administrator that blocked Sift&Winnow. As I wrote to Eurytemona I suggested looking at the Ashton Corners, Wisconsin article talk page and edit because of the anon editor's comments and edits. This anon editor had a run-in with Dual Freq and reported Dual Freq for the violation of 3 reverts rule. Dual Freq is on a wikibreak. I tried talking this anon edit into getting an account. This was Sift&Winnow who got the account at my suggestion. I did the same thing when this anon editor was causing problems for Centpacrr that this editor would get an account and do something constructive like reverting vandalism, started an article, joining the WP Wisconsin project. I am sadden by the difficulty that Centpacrr and the others had to go through. Finally. as I told Eurytemona, I am stun that these edits are from Connecticut-I thought this editor lived in Dane County, Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PeterGriffin's name calling[edit]

I'm having issues with PeterGriffin and his abusing and name-calling of others, whenever others are presenting sources which contradicts his own and deglorifies Carey in any way. These kind of behaviour is unacceptable. I did warn him over this a few days back, but just what happened in the Talk:Madonna (entertainer) and other Carey pages is beyond my comprehension. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wanna maybe explain your hipocrtisy Legolas? Only a few shiort days ago, you wrote much worse than me, profanities. While I might have thrown a few insults back and forth, I don't use the word "Fuck" or "Shit" like you, so its NOT "beyond you". Secondly, you already spoke to me about it and I understood and explained to you, So I don't understand what your trying to accomplish here once again, your not even providing new instances, your simply instigating.--PeterGriffin • Talk 17:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, understood.--PeterGriffin • Talk 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

first off[edit]

i did not insult. asked if he was dumb enough to think that. last i remember, asking someone a question is not insulting them. second you think i care if i get blocked? it wouldn't be the first time i did something that made sense on here, or on a wikia, that i got blocked for it, and then a week later they would have it on there. you have no power over me.

wikia: we have the source now. u cant do that, our policies state... blah blah..

they or you might as well be saying: if you put the right thing that only a stupid idiot wouldn't no is true without a source, you will be blocked. Mario & Luigi RPG 3 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's/she's back[edit]

Please see the message I have posted here and review the links in it. This user really needs a community ban as soon as possible. Centpacrr (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my understanding, there is a ban in place. But technical measures (blocks and edit filters) need to be put into place to really stop this. The guy is determined, and quite "clever" in his manipulation attempts, and it's pretty clear to me that he won't stop without an adequate "fence" in place (e.g. on the IPs and IP ranges he uses).Eurytemora (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can easily tell from just today's episode (see [21], [22], [23], [24], and [25]), blatant prevarication and feigned innocence/ignorance are among this user's favorite ploys. An effective and permanent ban of any and all accounts that he/she uses is essential, although I expect that this is not the last that we have heard from this individual. Whenever blocked, he/she always tries to find another ploy to get back in WP and be disruptive, but at least I hope that his/her damage to the project can be minimized as much as possible by the diligence of other editors. Fortunately individuals like this are relatively rare on Wikipedia, but those who surface can do real damage and also tend to eventually drive good editors away with their antics. I'll be sure to let you know if (or rather "when") he/she surfaces again. Thanks for your efforts in dealing with this, but I can tell you from three months of doing so myself it is like trying to play wac-a-mole with a chameleon. Centpacrr (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we do it without blocking the state of Connecticut?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kww’s suggestion of edit filters are an excellent idea (especially given the flexibility of such a tool). It seems to me that edit filters (for the articles he’s most likely to target) that block contributions from the pertinent IPs and IP ranges would help a lot. However, I don’t know enough about the construction of such filters to know whether they could exclude edits from newly registered users coming from specific IPs or IP ranges (as opposed to just excluding edits from the naked IPs). One problem is that it seems to me that still wouldn’t keep him from posting to various noticeboards (which he’s prone to do). I suppose IP blocks and range blocks could be put in place for the IPs and IP ranges he uses. If you exclude “stale” IP ranges, there is only one range (or perhaps two) plus several specific IP numbers (outside that range) that would have to be blocked (though he might try to find additional access routes if the ones he now uses are blocked). It’s too bad there isn’t some way to tie in geolocation into IP blocks or edit filters, since everything pertinent would map to the Stratford CT area.Eurytemora (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think there is a potential technical solution here. Every computer sends a good deal of information beyond just its IP when it requests a page from any server on the internet. (To see what is revealed click here.) If a filter can be designed to include a number of these pieces of information, or preferably the MAC address of either the specific computer and/or modem it is connected to if that be determined using software like "Find MAC Address", within any of the IP ranges he/she uses that should go a long way to targeting only the user to be blocked. Another option is also to set a cookie on the user's browser that blocks that computer from accessing Wikipedia's ftp or upload functions. I'm not sure how to do that, but perhaps some tech person with access to the WP server logs can come up with a filter based on this. What this would do, in effect, is block a specific computer no matter what IP it is using, but allow other users within the range to access all of Wikipedia's functions. Just a thought. Centpacrr (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that information is unavailable to anyone but a checkuser. An edit filter can only see the IP, and that only when the editor is editing anonymously.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that I am suggesting is that there are clearly too many loopholes in the current system that can be exploited by banned users such as this one that it may be technically possible for WP to come up with a way of closing using one or more of these techniques. This would of course need to be developed and implemented by someone at a level of technical expertise and access to WP's infrastructure way above and beyond any of us. I think that it is something worth considering, however. The current system is clearly not able to effectively eliminate highly disruptive users like this one from its midst if they don't want to be. Based on his/her previous behavior, I'm sure that we have not heard the last of him/her. Centpacrr (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centpacrr - Problem is, even with a filter of the type you’re proposing, determined blocked/banned users could always find new access points (i.e. new computers to post from), since such a filter would only be computer-specific (as opposed to person-specific). Still, might have some utility way way down the line – but would take a lot of technical development, not to mention political process, to implement at WP. Most of the http header info relates to the user’s browser, and that could readily be changed by the user (e.g. Firefox vs IE vs Chrome vs etc.). The OS (which is also transmitted in the header) should remain pretty stable though (but that’s quite limited info). And the MAC address (very specific) could be gotten through javascript in the browser. But I think with any of this, lots of people in the WP community would be concerned about privacy/computer security – so I suspect there would be much resistance to such a proposal.Eurytemora (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An aside – there’s been a lot of progress in recent years in statistical authorship identification techniques. Each person uses language in a surprisingly unique way. At some point, something like that could prove useful in identifying socks of blocked users (e.g. Support Vector Machine with appropriate character sets). It would be too computationally intensive to use in any kind of real-time filter (i.e. would slow the editing process down to much), but still could be useful in flagging suspect accounts/edits for later human inspection.Eurytemora (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand there are many limitations and that this may not be possible for reasons other than technical ones. But the current system is also clearly inadequate so I am trying to think "out of the box" right now and just brainstorm a bit. Disruptive users like this one are a vexing problem as you and I know all too well. Finding a broad based solution will not be easy and will take many more minds than just our's to accomplish, but if one can be found that works within the parameters of the project it would certainly also be a boon to the community as a whole. Centpacrr (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No system is 100% perfect. CU is an inexact science as it is. Let's not lose focus of the purpose of the exclusion here: it's to prevent disruption to the project. Now that the social measure is in place (the ban), any new socks can be reverted on sight and immediately blocked. This doesn't put an end to the problem, but reduces it to the level of background noise. After that, it's just a case of remembering to follow the I part of RBI until the problem in question gets bored of looking for attention here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I substantially agree. The disruptive editor is seeking to provoke reactions. Ignoring him – presenting a perfectly cool response (that he can’t emotionally hook) is likely to help extinguish the problem over time. He might still be a major nuisance for a while, but with a ban in place (and admins who are aware of him and willing to put up rapid blocks given DUCK, etc.), it should eventually abate. Though I’ll also say, given this user’s determination, intelligence, and manipulative skills, I suspect it will probably be more than background noise for a time. And the current system for dealing with severely disruptive editors leaves something to be desired (e.g. it’s often very slow, a disproportionate amount of time seems to be spent dealing with socks of banned/blocked users, good editors get discouraged and leave, etc.).Eurytemora (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unusually persistent disruptive editor, but I agree with Eurytemora's assessment above. As long as there are admins who are aware of him/her and willing to put up rapid blocks without having to go through a long AN/I process each time he/she resurfaces this problem should be manageable. Let's hope so anyway. Centpacrr (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Charles Harrelson[edit]

Hi. You hid my comment here on Talk:Charles Harrelson. It wasn't related to the recent additions on the talk page. Can I unhide it, or should I just add it again? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm finding that selective restore and delete is easier said than done. It looks like you just restored everything you tried to hide just by restoring my comment. If it's easier, I can just manually add it back. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Teenage Dream[edit]

I'm sorry. It is just because the cover of One of the Boys did not provide the source, too.

I will add the sources right now. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 05:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I belive Teenage Dream should be moved to the mainspace now. We have enough to verify it's release and enough information on it, including track listing, album art, etc. PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make Up Bag[edit]

Apologies, I was not aware that the IP requesting the edit was a banned user. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know; I will keep that in mind going forward. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling music artists[edit]

Hello Kevin. I am trying to come to you, to prevent another edit war. BlueSatellite is making a large change to the article, and I disagree. I keep asking him to have a"consensus" first, as I already disagree, but all he does is revert and accuse me of "fancruft" and "fanwars". Please help, because he needs to provide a consensus to change, I don't need one to revert.--PeterGriffin • Talk 05:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Admin, I just replace a 2004 article from The Independent with the 2010 article of the same newspaper. Do you think it is wrong??? Why an article from seven years ago is more reliable than an article from 2010! Bluesatellite (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just heading to bed. How about both of you stop editing on the article until morning, and I will look at the situation in about 9 hours?—Kww(talk) 05:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Ill wait, in the meantime we already started a discussion, so maybe you can take a look.--PeterGriffin • Talk 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you used the 9 hours well and are discussing things admirably. As long as no more edit-warring breaks out, I'll leave you to it.—Kww(talk) 14:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My life hell[edit]

What an evil and horrible person you are. You have made my life on Wikipedia hell! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.134.189 (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Year Without Rain[edit]

I did some adjustments after your close of the AFD, and thought it best to explain. A discography isn't supposed to include unreleased material, so pointing an article about an unreleased album there isn't very effective. I removed the improper material from the discography, and then pointed the article names at the appropriate section of the band article.—Kww(talk) 15:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you've done is fine by me. Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#What_should_not_be_included gives a little advice on the subject, though is vague. The notability requirements of a sub-article or list are normally lower than the parent, though I can see the sense of a discography being somewhat more formal and restricted, and there being room in an expansive parent article for speculation on future activities. Thanks for the head's up. SilkTork *^YES! 17:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hey, How are you? If you could take a look at this it would be great. I would like a consensus as this had been ongoing for weeks. It has basically been an ongoing discussion of people (myself included) arguing to include it or not without any evidence on either account. Since my last comment there have been no responses in four days. Would it be premature to close the discussion? Also, what is your view point on the discussion? (If you have a different view then myself thats fine, as i could be wrong but i dont believe i am :P ) (And thank you for the kind words on Mecos talk page =) ) Talk to you soon (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 05:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I too also wanted to to take this opportunity to thank you for your words Kevin. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey again[edit]

Hello Kevin, Please look here and here on my and F6Colturada's talk pages. There is an unresolved issue on the above mentioned page that needs attention. Firstly he reverted my edits 3 times, so he should be blocked for 1 day, secondly he doesn't even respond to the dispute I have with him (possibly because he knows he is wrong) and just reverts. The issue is regarding Carey's voice, please take a look and you will understand. My issue, as I have tried to tell him is not him adding information, just what sources, where and what he removes (sourced info from Billboard). Thanks--PeterGriffin • Talk 11:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petergriffin9901[edit]

Petergriffin9901 has removed various sources from other artists as unreliable, but just look: he has added lately this source to Mariah Carey articles and made changes. Do you need more than look to know this should never be used here? This source not only inflate sales but has so many fake informations about certifications, I don't even know where to begin. It seems it's a copy of an article that was deleted from Wikipedia some time ago.

And he has changed many of Carey sales numbers to the highest that can be found on the internet. Despite the fact that many other sources give smaller numbers. As of now, Wikipedia has the highest sales numbers for Mariah Carey in history - all thanks to edits by Petergriffin9901. Can you help? Max24(talk) 19:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to but in, but as this user has done it to me, I don't care. The fact is if it was Celine Dion the user would be happy for the sales to be highest. It's just because it's Mariah Carey. I think this should be brought up for discussion so impartial users can decide. Jayy008 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source being used states "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia", which means it cannot be used as a source: Wikipedia mirrors can't be used to source Wikipedia articles.—Kww(talk) 20:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking generally. Jayy008 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial sources should always be discussed. In general, I have found Max24's judgment about what sources are reliable and which are not to be relatively sound, but I agree that he isn't perfect. This particular case was blatantly obvious, though. I can't see how anyone could argue in favor of this source.—Kww(talk) 20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't personally argue it, but everything is just an argument between those two. My point I'm making is that Max wouldn't argue it if it was making Celine Dion look good, he's very bias. In future, I think other sources (ones that are allowed), should be discussed before he removes them, appropriate? Jayy008 (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time seeing Max24 as more biased in favor of Dion than Petergriffin9901 is in favor of Carey. It would be best if everyone involved discussed sources, and spent his time looking for the most accurate source.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks Jay for stating the truth we both have witnessed in the past. Also, I see hhow you try and make things sound Max, instead of telling me something I wasn't aware of when ii placed the source, you try and squeal like I vandalized a page. Shame on you. Secondly I will give you many instances where Max has done the same, as Jay indicates. In These Are Special Times, Max placed This source to state sales, a fake ripoff of IMDB, somerthing an editor whos been on Wiki for 3 years would know not to use. Even worse, in Falling into You and Let's Talk About Love, Max placed this Celine Dion forum to source certifications foor various countries. Also, since the countries certifiers aren't even known on those countries, he just linked them to the countries Wikipedia page. I am sorry Kevin, that you feel that way about mmy edits, but your wrong and not seeing the whole picture. Mmax iis just instigating, if he came and told me this issue himself, and explained it to me, you can be sure wouldn't have readded.--PeterGriffin • Talk 02:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interjection

First of all everyone needs to chill out! Grab yourself a juice and some cookies and enjoy the weather! It sounds like you are both equally wrong. Max and Peter have both obviously used sources which are not appropriate for wikipedia. And since Peter has recently brough up much discussion about Mariah Carey chart achievements Max has picked holes in Peter's sourcing and so Peter has pointed out that max has done the same in the past. From now I on I suggest that should you wish to change a 'fact' about Mariah Carey it should be posted on the talk page, neutral editors can discuss and then upon their approval it gets added. The fact is that some objectivity is required in matters like this. Lets all be a bit more grown up about this. Less tit-for-tat please! --Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do find this whole situation frustrating. I'll repeat my plea above: everyone should spend their time in search of the most accurate sources. "Most accurate" is clearly not the same as "source with the highest numbers", and that applies to all artists. This back-and-forth has been going on for over a year. If the dispute continues, I'll consider topic banning both editors from all Mariah Carey and Celine Dion articles just to get the dispute to stop.—Kww(talk) 03:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well imm just ppointing thhis oout Kevin. Max approached me (as I have tried many times) to reconcile with me, and I did. However this obviously proves otherwise. I can swear, if he ppresented this issue to me personallyt, and explained it to me, i would have no doubt stepped aside. It shows hes only instigating and iinterested in wars and issues. This is why I am telling you I am not making problems, he is, name me times when I come out off the blue, trying to get him into trouble? Never!--PeterGriffin • Talk 04:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys but Kevin is right... if you can't edit either article objectively then perhaps both of you should be banned from editing either article. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be banned from editing an article, because some troublesome editor makes problems. None of my edits are malicious or vandalism, in fact they are all sourced (mostly by reliale sources) so I have no poblems. In fact, he shouldn't either be banned from his articles, he does a god job on them (most of the time) and is one of the only editors who maintains her pages. The only issue is hes an instigator amd doesn't recognize peace and teamwork.--PeterGriffin • Talk 07:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're both guilty of finding the source which has the highest figure and adding it into your respective target articles. If neither of you can edit objectively then use either or both of you may have to recieve topic bans. Such measures are not reserved for vandalism. Constant changing of information back and forth is seen as disruptive and thus worthy of such measures. Now lets discuss each source(s) in an appropriate page a.k.a. the article discussion page(s) and resolve the issues with decorum. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Song[edit]

(referring to Brenda Song) How is the birthyears of her "non notable siblings" (two brothers, in this case) bad to add? Katie Holmes is a GA and it also lists her siblings' birthyears. ★Dasani★ 23:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen[edit]

this? I do not know which one of us should be insulted.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the idea that the Aruban hotel association would pay a Bonairean to write Wikipedia articles amusing.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever one of us is not the sockpuppet needs to send them a bill.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they figured out that we are distinct people, unless the miracles of quantum physics allowed me to simultaneously live in Virgina and Bonaire. I'm surprised with all the research (including an accurate picture of me posing in front of my hotel with my truck) that they haven't figured out that I'm a US resident again.—Kww(talk) 04:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am amused more than anything else. Still, it is nice to be part of something, even if it is an evil conspiracy to murder Natalee and cover it up. And you don't even post on Natalee hate boards!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, there was no such person, see here--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the rollback. I recently switched from my trusted BlackBerry to an iPhone and I apparently haven't yet mastered the touch maneuvering. Interesting link, by the way. --auburnpilot talk 13:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do the same thing all the time. Large fingers, even turning it sideways, small "keys".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I use my phone for talking and my laptop for computing: fundamentally separate tasks with fundamentally different interface requirements.—Kww(talk) 14:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another interesting link. I had not thought of using Google Books.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will you remove these dead files from my user page?[edit]

File:Mavoree Grove High School Diploma.JPG

High School Diploma

File:The National Society of High School Scholars certificate.JPG

The National Society of High School Scholars

Please remove these dead files from my user page, thanks.--McYel (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kww...your tea is ready.--McYel (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur[edit]

I wondered if you would use your tools when you were involved. Apparently you will. In any case, I think we previously reached an agreement that WP:RSN would decide this issue for us. Although I didn't do any reverting at the time when I "won", I actually did win that RSN discussion (I'm not talking about my comments, but about the comments of the uninvolved in that discussion). I just didn't feel like pushing the issue at the time (I was a bit exhausted), but in any case, they felt it did establish notability. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of Religion[edit]

Hi Kww. After the merger of Economics of religion I did a big copy-edit/reorganization. User:Thomasmeeks and User:Tryptofish also worked on cleanup. I didn't understand your recent large edit, which seemed to return a good deal of older material that had been 'refactored' as well as your removing some information outright. Your edit summary 'more promotion of Shayne Lee' totally missed me. Can you explain your edit? I didn't want to just revert it but my preference is for most of the prior version. Ocaasi (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I missed the intermediate edit by Thomas Meeks, which was responsible for much of the changes I disagreed with. Ocaasi (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks! Ocaasi (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo[edit]

Hey KWW, I've been on an unexpected Wikibreak for a few months and was gone when you ran for adminship the 4th time. I wish I was around to support you. A really late congratulations and I'm glad you had the guts to try again. -- Atama頭 23:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She Wolf (song)[edit]

The creation of this whole disambiguation page is not correct. The song "She-Wolf" by Megadeth is over ten years old and has thus far never been created as an article so why should the need for disambiguation exist right now? If it has never been created in the last ten years then there is no evidence to suggest that you need to disambiguate between "She-Wolf" by Megadeth and "She Wolf" by Shakira. If anything "She-Wolf" is just a regular song appearing on an album. So why create such a disambigation page and cause a dab for no reason? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if the song is not notable for creation as an article and it has not recieved any coverage at the article page for the parent album that what is the need? Should i go through all U2 albums for example add all of the songs from track listings to other songs and create dabs/disambiguations? Surely as there are only two things being dabbed a hat note would have sufficed? And even then I'm not convinced a need even exists. To me it seems unrequired and has been created for the sake of it. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is if we allow such creations of disambiguation pages where do you draw the line? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a sockpuppet of someone[edit]

Hey Kevin,

Umm User:2igloo must be sockpuppet of someone. I mean theres no way that any new users first edit would be starting a AfD. If hes not someones sock then he must be a single purpose account as all his edits have been to Kat Stacks, the AfD for Kat Stacks. Maybe someone just not wanting anything to do with that person on Wikipedia as she and her story is conterversial. Just wanted to report this to someone and I didn't know exactuly where to but you deal with alot of socks so I took it to you. Red Flag on the Right Side 06:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kombo[edit]

I'm looking into the site in order to find out what their editorial policy is. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

67.80.190.24[edit]

67.80.190.24 (talk · contribs) requested edits on several articles that you'd semi-protected against Brexx; please check. Chzz ► 02:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reverts[edit]

Hi Kww! Please, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive and compare the edits of the IP with the previous edits by 86.161.139.63 [26][27]. This user always circumvents his block with a new IP or account (he is currently block with his accounts KirkleyHigh, Mastermindofmusic, Iamthechaser and some IPs). PS : See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive#01 August 2010. Regards, --Europe22 (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Romanian Top 100[edit]

Thank you for your advice, but can you give me an example of how that reference should look? If you have the time ... Alecsdaniel (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You are involved at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Dekkappai_--_Repeated.2C_and_increasing.2C_campaign_of_incivility_and_personal_attacks only as a target of uncivil comments made by another editor, and may or may not wish to comment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"German Singles Chart" sourced with redirected MTV site[edit]

Hi, I hope you're doing well.

I've seen this a couple of times recently: a user has added an end-of-year position for "German Singles Chart" citing mtv.de as a reference. I can't confirm even the claimed number, much less the usefulness of the chart (is it MTV's own? Or a listing from Media Control? Dunno.), because the site redirects (to the national MTV site I'm supposed to prefer) when I try to go there. I see no links to German charts or end-of-year charts.

Can you follow that ref and get to an actual chart to verify the number? Alternatively, can you say without doubt there's no point in going there, as the ref violates BADCHARTS? I see the user in this case has made similar changes to many articles. Undoubtedly he's working in good faith, but should we have faith he's doing good work? Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you can get to the charts and see the numbers (and there's just no statement about their source)? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt he's a sock[edit]

Well User:Partially730 was indefintly blocked a couple days ago for vandalism and now he is back as User:TruthTeller93. Its a no brainer as every link on TruthTeller93 userpage is exactlly the same links that are/were on Partially730's such as the YouTube and the Formspring. And the userpage is pretty much a copy and paste move and the account was created like just after Partially730 was blocked. Well what will be done? Red Flag on the Right Side 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archived rt100[edit]

Hi! Well, I archived the page, but when I click the link, it sends me to this edition of the chart, not the previous one. Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have a link of the archived page of Romanian Top 100 at Billionaire (song). It does use webcitation.org, but it directs to this edition [well, no big loss for now, it kept it's position]. Alecsdaniel (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what happened, and will wait a week. When you archived it, your title showed that you had archived edition 46 of the chart, and edition 46 is still active. The date on the archived chart is different than today's (Aug. 3, not Aug 6). Are you sure the chart changed between when you archived it and today?—Kww(talk) 15:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like, for some reason, only the top10 is archived [but if you go to other postions after that they are the ones from the previous edition; also, if you go back to the top10, you'll see it's "Alejandro" the #1 song, while last week "We No Speak Americano" was. Alecsdaniel (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did it how you said I should, although I archived that particular page last week too. I kept the e-mail this time, in case they publish another edition, just to show you I did right, lol. Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd draw your attention to this...[edit]

...since you were involved before:

I stumbled upon User:Dear87, and noticed these two edits [28] [29]
Which of course let me to User:Matthew Riva
And then to this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItHysteria/Archive

Is this someone who perhaps went through a "I'm sorry please let me start over again and I promise to be good" deal with someone? If so I could not find any evidence of it, but since you dealt with him before I wanted to doublecheck before any admin action was taken. Any cause for alarm here? - eo (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant changes to accessibility guidelines will have a major impact.[edit]

Hi Kevin, Apparently over the last few days/weeks the rules and guidelines for Accessibility have changed greatly and consultation appears to be taking place after the changes have been implemented. MOS:DISCOG is one of the first places to see the effects of the change. It essentially involves the syntax for data tables. The discussion is here and even if you don't wish to input to the discussion on how we can implement the changes, the changes will most likly impact on the {{singlechart}}. I thought I'd give you a heads up on the situation... --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform you the part of the discuss relating to record charts has moved to charts --Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re:references and singlechart[edit]

Kww, you must have me confused with someone else, because I do not think I have done one singlechart conversion. The edit where you said AnemoneProjectors edited my changes, [30], was incorrect since the only edit I have made to that article was this one, [31], where I reverted the addition of a non-genre, power ballad, to the genre field. Aspects (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing AfDs[edit]

I've closed that Elecktric Blue one for you. There's an excellent script, User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js, which does it all for you very smoothly, and a useful accompanying one, User:Mr.Z-man/hideClosedAFD.js, which hides already-closed AfDs so that you can scroll through the log only seeing open ones. That one's not perfect - if you go away from the log and come back, you've lost your place and have to go back to the top and click "Hide closed" again; but it's still useful. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Files[edit]

Hi Kevin, I really need a bit of help in this department. I would like to include those "Sound or audio file snippets" that are around 20-30 seconds that you could listen to on the albums page. I don't know how to find them, place them or use them for the matter. Please help me. Thanks.--PeterGriffin • Talk 18:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Ill ask another editor who uses them more often as well. Thanks--PeterGriffin • Talk 19:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

still blocked[edit]

Hi, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockList&ip=%232032583 user still is blocked can you sort it out? Off2riorob (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna albums discography[edit]

If you are still online, can you please come at Madonna albums discography? User:LAUGH90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is continuously changing the album sales of Confessions on a Dance Floor, without consensus amongst the editors, even after continuously being asked to. I'm afraid this needs administrative intervention or the full protection of the pages. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its getting ridiculous. The user just changed back all the intermediate revisions in Confessions on a Dance Floor without discussing. I would like your advice on such matters, whether block is eminent. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freakshownerd's talk page[edit]

Hola,

I'm backing off his/her talk page, given my comments are simply deleted. However, if you are at all interested in the specifics of what these disputes are, you should look at my deleted contributions. I'm acknowledging FSN has valid concerns and trying to address them - one wording suggestion was a good one, and I implemented it. I'm hoping that after FSN cools off a bit (which will be helped by me not posting any more edits for a bit) s/he will see there's actually merit to this discussion we are having and start to really, substantively engage.

All that to say, if you're just reading the page itself rather than the history, you'll miss my attempt to actually resolve the core disagreements. FSN has never articulated some of the specifics of his/her objections, and while there are still issues based on a parsing of the whole body of literature, for specific verbatim stuff there is merit to listening. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I think FSN and I are both in agreement over the current page being an improvement, you'll probably see a sticking point in this diff (not the infobox, the text). AIDS denialism is already included, both as a link and as prose. However, the second mention in the first paragraph replaces "to question HIV-AIDS causation, despite an overwhelming scientific consensus" with "as well as his activities within the AIDS denialist community". The second phrase is my wording. Though arguably the two are equivalent, I believe "AIDS denialist" is simpler, clearer, and accurately presents, without extra wording, the fact that these activites are denialism. I'm not sure if FSN prefers his/her wording because AIDS denialist is pejorative (which it is, because it is unambiguously considered pseudoscience - making it accurate akin to calling a thief a thief) or simply repetetive. I'm also not sure about the removal of Kalichman's book, but have put up a note on the talk page. FSN has removed Kalichman as "not neutral" in the past [32] replacing Kalichman's scholarly book with a popular science magazine article. That edit also used the term "dissident" (a term understandably prefered by AIDS denialists because it portrays the situation as a realistic disagreement rather than pseudoscience, but in my opinion inarguably incorrect since there is no actual debate). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RS/N[edit]

Hi Kww. You were mentioned here.

Thanks.--FormerIP (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More SPI notes[edit]

In reference to [33], you may have already noticed this but a few minutes ago another autoblock came through from NW's original block of Gimmetoo. Original block was at 2010-08-13T23:38:29Z by NuclearWarfare. The autoblock was at 2010-08-14T00:37:53Z. About 30 minutes ago. Shadowjams (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Gomez & the Scene article need semi-protection![edit]

Hello. The article Selena Gomez & the Scene has been vandalized quite a bit. I was wondering if you might think about semi-protecting it again. Thanks so much! Roselily6 (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey (album) GA nomination[edit]

Hello Kevin. So in the last few days Ive pretty much re-done the page trying to make it a GA level page. Here is what the article looked like before I started. And this is what is looks like now. So my issue is LICKITI reviewed it very quickly and just failed it; here is his list of issues with the page. Now Kevin, these little things can be done in 2 hours, Ive re-done the whole page in 4 days. Instead of taking the time to do this as other editors have had the curtesy of doing with him, he just fails. I want to know if there is a way to re-appeal or do something. I feel the page was looked at and judged in an unfair and unjust manner. Thanks.--PeterGriffin • Talk 23:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lopez (semi-protection)[edit]

Hello Kevin. The above mentioned article has received allot of vandalism (regarding her albums sales) in the last week. Take a look, and if you agree please semi-protect the article for a while. Thanks.--PeterGriffin • Talk 06:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey albums discography[edit]

Please leave your comment HERE. Baratayuda (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re:Lady Gaga[edit]

I honestly did not revert that edit based on WP:OR, I realize that OR doesn't prohibit simple additions, after all we have all the certified sales, why would I view it as OR. I just think we should not open doors for sources which state multiple figures within. It's best to have one figure, if we let this one go, tomorrow we might have other editors submitting sources claiming separate figures for each album/single respectively (something like this for example), and we won't be able to prevent it because we'll already have one on the list. But if you still think we should add Lady Gaga to the list with the source submitted earlier, I can live with that. Anyways, my main focus is to keep those artists off the list which don't have enough number of certifications to back up their claimed figures, and Gaga is not one of them. As for me, I think we should wait for a source stating one figure only.--Harout72 (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas?[edit]

I’m wondering if you have any suggestions for dealing with Techwriter2B/Filmcracker/64.252/75.2...

He popped up again at ANI, with a complaint against Centpacrr (his current favorite target) and OhNoitsJamie (admin who blocked his IP)[34]. Claiming to be an innocent church volunteer, subjected to mistaken admin action (accusing Centpacrr of having desecrated the Beatitudes, etc.).

RBI doesn’t seem to work ideally in dealing with this guy. He’s good at churning up drama – history of popping up with new IPs/IDs, and making frequent solicitous complaints at various forums (two within the last month, following the ban – previous one was a claim of vandalism against Centpacrr). His actions are often ham-handed enough that I wouldn’t expect other editors to get sucked in – but it seems that they often do (at least initially). So he effectively keeps getting “fed” (i.e. minimal expenditure of effort on his part consistently yielding high drama payout). Any suggestions from dealing with prior analogous cases?Eurytemora (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've just been told that an abuse response process has been initiated [35].Eurytemora (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LAUGH90 sock[edit]

Personal invitation to discussion: Cert columns headings & links[edit]

Hi, Kevin. In trying to determine consensus for (or against) a change of headings and links in music-related articles, I've managed to draw comments from exactly two other editors. I'd feel better about moving ahead (or not moving ahead) with the change if I knew how much (or little) support there is for it among more of the music-focused editors.

It's a teeny matter (and I thought the discussions would be simple, but this is ridiculous), but I'd appreciate it if you would weigh in at the Certifications column heading links discussion at MOS:DISCOG. (There's a similar one, sort of, over at WT:Record charts, but I'll be happy if I can just generate some activity at MOS:DISCOG). Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey[edit]

Hello Kevin. The above mentioned page is being ravaged by vandalism from Ips. Every single edit done by an IP is reverted. Please this page needs the semi-protection to be reinstated! Thanks.--PeterGriffin • Talk 08:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

You may want to take a look at User talk:The3penguins. Hes adding literally dozens and dozens of "cover versions" to random article all linking to [36]. Its pretty obvious its self promotion. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:HokeyPokey1996[edit]

I have a feeling Mario96 is back... Still waiting for more evidence, but <quack quack> I hear something... 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

I was wondering if this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud2btHsWgyM Go to 7min40 Sec . it seems fine since it is from nathan for the new untitled upisode. for the iCary page. Nathan said "...Max was just in the episode we just film iStart a Fan War. I don't have time right now to check this but it looks like he said it. Can you tell if this is a fine source and I will update the two parter episodeSaylaveer (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For I have no mouth and I must scream[edit]

Kevin, I've sent you an e-mail (probably without a real signature). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. It's funny about the mail problem; I get the test mails I send myself. I got a copy of the mail I sent you.

He's been unusually quiet the last few days. It could be because he saw some serious discussions about him, or maybe it's just because school's back in. Old IP, apparently no longer associated: 82.19.248.157; current IP, just made a few more edits today: 82.24.227.215; very certain about I3eN_10-11; nagging suspicion about Big45Ben. I haven't noticed any really obvious socky behavior like adding "Oh, yeah, I agree 100% with..." in a discussion, but sometimes one account will respond when I answer another one. I can give more details about *why* I suspect connections, but I'll leave it for now, unless you ask for more, which I'll be glad to provide. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. With that brick wall coming up, I thought I'd see his taillights flash or he'd swerve a little, even if only at the last minute. But no, he just stepped on the gas. Incredible. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How long can we tolerate this?[edit]

I think you'd be interested in reading this. Please leave your comment. -- Max24 (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Mario sock[edit]

Check out User:Rocas1014 and the mainspace article, ICarly (Season One). 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And an unblock request somewhat related just popped up on User talk:Joanna101. Sheesh, doesn't this one ever give up? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dembski[edit]

Sorry, I ran into an edit conflict and copy-pasted over your partial revert to preserve some citations. My apologies, I'm on a very slow computer that is screwing up my editing and now have to go do something else. If you could do me a huge favour, could you revisit your edit on the new version? If you think my edit is without merit and the changes not worth keeping, then you have my permission to revert to your version and I'll replace my text when I have the time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candid ANI[edit]

See Wikipedia:Ani#Kww_and_WLU. Toddst1 (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight?[edit]

Demski is back at the BLPN. Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP[edit]

I have reported your abuse of admin tools and attacks on BLP subject you disagree with to the appropriate noticeboards. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, you've been here for 3 months, do you even understand what Admin tools and limits are? Seriously find something productive to do with your time.--PeterGriffin • Talk 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help here[edit]

PLEASE (if you can). This may take a bit of your time; I totally get it if you don't look at this right away or can't deal with it, considering the ANI nonsense (above) going on right now. I keep digging up things here, and I can't decide if I'm just delusional or too deep into it to realize that there is nothing wrong, but a pair of extra eyes would really help me - and if you concur with my suspicions, I'll take this to a checkuser request; otherwise I'll drop it. Note that some of these things I'm pointing out were edited months ago, but I believe them to be a small part of a larger, ongoing problem.

I've left multiple talk page messages and my "assuming good faith" has grown weary with this user [37]. I believe I may have written about him to you before. His editing style, his editing mistakes, his choice of articles, his taste in music is eerily similar if not a direct copy of a large number of IP addresses. His edits here [38]. Even today, he responded to me with a feigned "I don't know what you're talking about" message on my Talk Page.
These are several IPs I've seen with distinct similarities: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]. I'm thinking there are many more.
Even looking over all of these, I still cannot shake the hunch that they are somehow related to User:Greenock125 and his multitude of socks [52] who also edit the same artist/album/template articles.

Again, maybe my eyes are a bit blurry at the moment from looking at all of this, so perhaps I am off-base here but something fishy is definitely going on with this. Any opinions? - eo (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish[edit]

Peter would stop being so defensive and calling others as crappy and negative. just for your future reference. I could hardly care less. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack you Legolas, I said crappy logics and negative editors (towards me). That's not a personal attack whatsoever.--PeterGriffin • Talk 08:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review: human molecule[edit]

Deletion review for Human molecule[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Human molecule. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Libb Thims (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archive[edit]

Hi, I'm back and I just saw the RT100 site continues to publish the chart, but still with no archive and I was wondering what could I do, since that site you mentioned doesn't proper archive it because of the "?" mark. Alecsdaniel (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Albums (Tube Bar) question[edit]

Hi Kww,

Drmies told me that you're very active & knowledgable with notable music albums. There has been a problem with referencing the Tube Bar prank calls albums. The best I could find from my limited understanding was listings & some reviews at BillBoard which is certainly a third party and a non-bias site. The issue is most of the albums are only the listing which proves that they exsist and but does that qualify for "notable"? Can these be used for some of the albums so they won't be delated?

Thank you kindly, Tyros —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vin Diesel[edit]

Hi, I was under the impression that pages currently on pending changes were being left on it for the time being and that no consensus had yet been reached on whether to discontinue pending changes. If I'm mistaken, then please let me know, but, unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, your removal of PC from Vin Diesel on the basis that the trial has ended seems odd. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:ID[edit]

I apologize for the confusion here. It had just seemed very confusing with all SV's bullet points then others' threads beginning with bullet points. Hadn't realized until now that you were an admin, and erroneously thought it a newbie mistake rather than a reasoned choice based on experience with RfCs and other fora that use that basic type of formatting. No biggie I'm sure--just wanted to let you know I'd realized what was going on after the fact. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1977 South African Grand Prix[edit]

Hi Kww. 1977 South African Grand Prix, which you semi-protected back in June as a result of it having been edited by a sock-puppet, probably doesn't need to be semi-protected any more - it hasn't been subject to any vandalism since then. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Airplay Chart[edit]

Jeez, I screwed up big time here. I saw a request at WP:EAR and used Twinkle to remove the back links rather than the references. I will go back an undo my goof as quickly as possible. Sorry about that. – ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I got them all. – ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey albums and singles discography[edit]

Hi Kevin, I appear to be hitting a rough patch in the FLC's and I'll explain why. Yesterday, the albums FLC here failed, mainly for the fact of 2 editors expressed that they believe the two discographies to be one merged (Mariah Carey discography, not albums and singles). I have tried to explain that there was a consensus, one you were somewhat part of 8 months ago here, but they don't agree. Now there are 6 editors (look on the FLC, Lakeshade also agrees to them being 2 separate articles) versus 2 (Courcelles and Dan Dassow) who don't respect this consensus reached months ago. So I'm here asking for some advice, because I never thought in a million years the articles would get shot down for this reason, especially because Courcelles does't seem to respect a "talk page consensus." So I fear the newly nominated singles discography will suffer the same fate, so what do I do? I there an official thing I can do that will put this issue in its place once and for all? So people can't refute the nomination because of a believed merge. There must be an official page for this, one were a real consensus will finally be reached! Thanks.--PeterGriffin • Talk 00:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, thanks I'll do that! :)--PeterGriffin • Talk 17:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a quick glance?[edit]

I was kinda put off by this comment [53] and in fact I had taken note of this user yesterday. The edit history [54] shows someone who is rather "knowledgable" about editing and policy (including creating a new article only 3 days in), and a bit pushy for someone who has supposedly only been editing since August 22. I don't want to be accused of assuming bad faith (especially since that comment has been left on my page), but the general attitude/editing style/edit summaries gave me a sense of deja-vu when I spotted it yesterday afternoon. Does it ring any bells for you or am I just being cranky? I know you have a lot on your plate; let me know what you think. - eo (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, and that's my assumption too. We shall see, I guess. Have a good one. - eo (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STEF1995S[edit]

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

(A Year Without Rain)[edit]

Hi there, Kww. You recently deleted (A Year Without Rain) as an implausible redirect, which it surely was. Unfortunately, it was also the history of Talk:A Year Without Rain (song), which Jerome0012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved to mainspace in order to hide. It ought to be restored to the proper place. While I'm on the subject, it appear to me that 100% of Jerome0012's recent edits are vandalism or disruption related to Selena_Gomez_&_the_Scene; I hope that you will take a look at that as well. Thanks for reading. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have new messages[edit]

Waiting for you at the Help Desk. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polish 'New Songs' Top 5 or the whole airplay chart?[edit]

Hi. Polish Airplay Chart should be added only, in my opinion. "Polish Airplay New Chart" is just like Hot 100. Not gives the whole airplay thing. Or something should be added near it just like: "Polish Airplay Chart New Top 5" Don't you think i'm right? --Triancula (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a tool[edit]

Brother, you're a freaking genius. I don't have time to tear into it just now, as I've got an appointment for the next few hours, but I like the idea a lot and will have a list of comments, criticisms, questions, etc., for you in the next, oh, 10-12 hours. How/where would you like them? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Test report 1[edit]

Based on version available 2010-09-05 18:00 UTC. Hopefully not too terse for you, you know I can get more verbose if you want.

First question is where you're planning on putting it. If it's its own Web page, you should give it a <title> in the HTML. The form UI could be dressed up a bit, too, with bold captions, better-aligned fields, valid HTML, etc. If it's going to be some WP JS tool, some of that dressing up won't be possible (AFAIK) or necessary.
What's the order of Links to chart pages? It's not alphabetical, in any case.
Swiss link is German version (hitparade.ch), not English version (swisscharts.com) singlechart actually uses.
(I've alluded to this once before, but it's popped up again here.) The (all Hung, so far) links on the left are nice, clean simple ones, without any extra www's. Ultratop needs www, the rest don't. But it's weird (I mean, it's got me wondering what you're doing) because singlechart doesn't generate the simplified form; it always uses the longer, www form. They ought to match, I'd say.
German special name/title (if any chart needs it, it's that one). Ah, you mentioned this to me already.
Has trailing, not leading, new row. See what I mean?
If I try to look up "Love Don't Cost A Thing" by Jennifer Lopez, well, I haven't found a successful way yet. Hung has several pages for it (Austrian example). I keep getting "ERROR HM_NOMATCH: Cannot find LOVE DON\'T COST A THING (SONG) by JENNIFER LOPEZ". As I try different forms, case, etc., I press Submit repeatedly, and each time I do, the escape-slash for the apostrophe gets escaped itself, so I go from Don't to Don\'t to Don\\\'t to Don\\\\\'t, etc.
Mismatched formats of date/accessdate*
date shows 1-digit day (2010-7-3) where 2-digit (2010-07-03) required.
accessdate uses a format (5 Sep 10) not allowed by WP's MoS.
Date format to generate should be selectable (both or each).*
It's a little difficult to select just the right-pane content without slopping over at the bottom-right in a way that somehow selects the lower-left pane, too. At the same time, some people will end up missing the leading piping character when they select the right-pane content. So (crazy idea): can you provide a button to copy the output to the user's clipboard (or at least select all)? Again, this relates to the implementation, the kind of app, your user base, etc, you anticipate.

*This drags us into a little discussion about date consistency. The MoS says articles should be consistent internally in their text, and consistent in their references, even if different articles use different formats. We're given a few allowed formats. In my travels I've seen the ISO form yyyy-mm-dd (which I happen to like) used surprisingly often for accessdates, and less often for citation dates (in the article proper it's invariably something else). Citation dates are often 12 March 2010 or March 12, 2010, but may also be the ISO form. Now, I haven't stumbled across any discussions about how this practice varies from the MoS, but I get the impression we're generally doing things wrong when we have mismatched formats in the ref citations.

If you agree with that, then the output of the tool should at least be consistent in the date/accessdate formats. You can pick one and always use that for both. Next best is adding some ability to select the desired date format to use for both. A row of 3 radio buttons ought to suffice.

If you disagree that dates and accessdates have to match, or if you think you need to support those who do, you'll want to look at provide selectable formats for both; you'd need two rows of three buttons then.

That's all for now. Hope it helps. Ask for more details or clarifications if you need 'em. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection[edit]

I've move-protected your user and user talk pages due to the pagemove vandal that just hit you - do free to remove it if you don;t feel it's necessary, though. Connormah (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmetyal[edit]

Hi. I didn't know where to go to, so I thought on asking you. Yesterday, a user named Ahmetyal [all the List of number-one hits in Romania] from 2002 to 2010 in one huge article titled List of number-one singles in Romania, without any explantion. I asked him why did he do that and he didn't answer. I don't think what he did was right, hope we'll find a solution. Alecsdaniel (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes trial complete?[edit]

What did you mean when you said that when removing the pending changes from 2010 in hip hop music? Red Flag on the Right Side 21:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN Notification[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_help:_I_was_just_threatened_with_an_indef_block_by_DMacks.3F Exxolon (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lucas1010[edit]

Guess who's still trying to create their own little fantasy page? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English as she is spoken[edit]

When you made your edit comment that ...It's too early in the morning for my English to kick in, I would agree the it's; but you almost made yourself an Englishman with the (quite correct) use of proved before you reveretd to being an American again. (Sigh). Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Minogue discography[edit]

heyaa, a while ago a discussion was started to decide whether to split the article into separate albums and singles on the talkpage. The consensus so far has been in support so would you be able to action the split? (you said before to ask you cuz of splitting the article histories etc) thanks Mister sparky (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaForest[edit]

Well, I think the site's OK, since the official website of RT100 has a link to them. Alecsdaniel (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PC Changes protection[edit]

Do you would have any problem if some of the recent pages that you and Dabomb are protecting? I've checked on the history of those page (WP:RFUP), and it's not enough vandalism for re-indef protect them. Thank you. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 22:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For now I saw that Rick Warren had none revert in the PC, so seems like the page need no more protection. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 22:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick action[edit]

Thank you for taking care of User:Alaaan I had recently left a note on User:HJ Mitchell's talk page Admin_Poser --Wolfnix • Talk • 13:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfnix has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Wolfnix has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Helping with a trickey case of vandalism spamming userspace and admin space! Wolfnix • Talk • 13:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iluvrihanna24[edit]

kww - Iluvrihanna24 (talk · contribs) has run into a problem with your unblock; it appears his/her IP was also hardblocked due to block evasion. I'm not sure if you took that into account when you unblocked, so I'll leave it to your discretion on how to handle that. Kuru (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inniverse[edit]

As much as I think he is a sock of an indefinitely blocked user, I don't know if that was the best situation to block, given that you blocked before. It may be a better idea to unblock and at least let another independent admin assess the case, just out of fairness. –MuZemike 18:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warn[edit]

Can you warn or block this goof or something. Edit waring fashion, and comments directed towards me such as "Moronic fan with a moronic username!"([55])", "Yes, kid. Diddy says two lines in the song. Learn to read links before removing them. Get over it and move on." ([56])" Just generally being rude. Has been warned for uncivilty before - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another "[57] ("The rules section of Wikipedia says I can remove comments whenever I want so screw off.) And theres another pretty little one on my talk page. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just letting you know that the IP you just blocked (User:70.127.205.86) is back. See my talk page. Thanks. Mike Allen 21:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please read ASAP/need information[edit]

Hi. A bunch of very interested people would like to know where you got the information that Ryan's Hope will be off the air at the beginning of October. Did this information come from SoapNET? Disney? This is very important to a lot of people. SoapNET won't tell us anything, and if this is true, we really need to know. I know it's just a stupid soap opera but we care about it. Thank you so much in advance. Lstef1983 (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)lstef1983[reply]

Edit warring policy discussion[edit]

I appreciated your thoughts in the "What's a revert?" thread I started at AN yesterday. It often takes kicking an idea around with others, and hearing what they have to say about the topic, before I can get to the question I really need to ask. So the discussion was really helpful to me, and I've been able to say at AN what I was asking there much more concisely:

Can an editor use "his daily 1RR" revert to delete some content added by an opponent an hour ago, and then also walk through the article like a shopper pushing a cart down a grocery aisle and just remove (or restore) whatever additional content he chooses to suit his POV? Merely because that additional content was added (or removed) a year ago or a month ago, and is thus not under current dispute? Doing so might violate other policies, but does it violate 1RR or not?

If you have the time and inclination, I'd be grateful if you wouldn't mind weighing in again at AN, on this more specific question. Sorry it took me so long to be able to formulate the question clearly and state it concisely. I'm not trying to shape the outcome by asking particular admins, btw. I'm making this same request to all admins who contributed. Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)‎[edit]

That's a commercial website. There's no content on the links anyway. Check them. They're void of content. I'm not sure I follow your thinking, and I think you pulled the trigger too quickly. The articles need quality sources, not links to download sites. Dawnseeker2000 00:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Amalthea's talk page.
Message added 13:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

In fact, I am even shocked that you still have User talk:Andy593 in your watchlist, or you've simply forgotten to remove it from your watchlist, by doing a null edit. Hey Mid (contributions) 13:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Perry album cover debate[edit]

It would be really helpful if you could give your opinion here. thanks. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 14:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comment Left on My Page[edit]

Hi Fellow editor, the comment left on my page is a little unfair considering I was trying to clarify someone elses edit that was unreferenced. It just so happens I happen to know his family and was in the process of finding a verifiable source. Thanks --Sikh-History 20:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LoudR24[edit]

I am 94% certain I known who this is, even without CU. Shall I take it to SPI (I'll be glad to do it, no trouble), or are you in a position to handle it more expeditiously? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're fast. You'd already replied before I was satisfied with my query. I had an SPI case for him once before, if that's what you're looking for. Meanwhile, I'm going to run to the store. Back soon to see what's up. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German Black Chart[edit]

Can it not be added using webcite as an archived source? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No actually I was just thinking in the absense of a song charting on the main German Singles Chart. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fog desert[edit]

Hi! I am a member of WP Deserts and keep an eye on all the desert-related articles. You removed a picture from Fog Desert article without giving a proper description in edit summary. Please explain why you removed it. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 22:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Sorry to bother you. But I would add the picture back again (not by reverting). Since the article does need a picture. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 08:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album)[edit]

"The international cover was sighlty changed. It features the words "Katy Perry" and "Teenage Dream" written in like-candy red letters" yeah took me years to wrote it. BTW, I see no consensus, I only read comments, but nowhere says "OK we agree that the texted cover should go, and the other must dissapear" Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 00:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, is very obvious that include a texted cover and then add a short expalnition of the alternative cover -is the the same but without text- is better. But I would like to remind you that the article is for the reader, not the users, I certainly don't which cover were released where, it seems like both covers are international, and both are valid, but with a rule all is ruined, and unfortunatly we cannot ignore that rule, but wait, WP:IGNORE is a rule? Isn't it ironic? Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 00:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings[edit]

Re: Jrs1200[edit]

Hey Kww,
I know you are more into the admin functions. Looks like at User talk:Jrs1200 is admitting to prior misconduct. Seems to be continuing such behavior. Is (and I am guessiing here of the correct terminology) Jrs1200 a 'sockpuppet' of Jerome0012?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temple garments[edit]

many people know the term only by magic underwear. The point of including the reference is so that those outside of LDS can make the connection bewtween LDS members saying "garments" and secular persons saying "magic/Mormon underwear" or whatever other term might be used. Magic underwear as a phrase is not sactioned by the Mormon Church, but nonetheless is a legitimate usage of English to describe something. By the logic of those who wish to take out the reference because they they do not like it, we should also emove references in Wikipedia to 'Niggers,' 'Papists,' 'gimps,' 'spastics,' 'urban format radio,' 'queers,' 'Mongoloids,' 'Mexican Jumping Beans,' 'broads,' 'dames,' 'retards,' and all pictorial depiction of Mohammed. Further, we must then remove 'The Netherlands' in favor of 'Nederland', replace 'Japan' with 'Nipon', and list Fort Collins' misnamed newspaper as 'The Coloradoan [sic]' instead of merely using the proper term 'The Coloradan.'

The fact that a limited demographic may not care for the term, does not mean the term is invalid.

I am not recommending or condoning the term 'magic underwear', merely providing those who may not know the full context with a place to learn the full background.

Commander[edit]

Hi Kevin, Now you know that I have been a strong advocate for the {{singlechart}} but I don't agree that it provides the best link for Slovakia/Czech Republic. E.g. the template generates this as a source for "Commander" in Czech Republic but the manual source seen here is much more information and useful. Is it not possible to callibrate both Czech and Slovak sources to produce these?

Secondly... I added Canadian Hot 100 on 19 August but aCharts shows the chart issue date as Saturday August 28. So it was somewhere around that time period. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!.... i think BB needs a complete redesign. What an aweful website- absolutely horrific! Thanks for finding the canadian link tho. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage[edit]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singlecharts[edit]

Why do you keep reverting my edits? The main reason why everyone re-adds it is because the guidelines say not to remove once there. But no one spoke of changing it on the article's talk page. No one discussed it. It was just done and then I can't do anything about it? I don't think so. Then when, I brought this point up prior and someone told me that a notification was not necessary because the update should be automatic. What does that even mean? That everyone should use singlecharts. So then why is there another option? I prefer to stick to the manual charts and it is driving me insane that this keeps being reverted. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 20:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual doesn't compare to you. But to me, the singlechart is a piece of crap (sorry for my language). But that's what it is. I can't stand it. If you want to make sure, the sources, formatting, and whatever else you can come up with are reliable and correct. The if scenario doesn't apply here and I volunteer myself to change any cites if the URL is lost for the articles I am a contributor to. Don't try to convince me to use the template, because it won't work. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 20:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can force myself to keep my promise and asking for me not to revert it once it is used is almost as if I was using it. Why shouldn't I? The rule is just an excuse so that no one can revert it because some people like it. It's not going to damage the system if I revert it. Please, stop because I'm never going to be O.K. with using it. As far as my constructive criticism goes, I have explained numerous times my dislike of the template and its formatting in the table and cites. I have engaged in discussion and none of the issues I brought up have been addressed as of now. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 20:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as long as all of that is correct for this scenario, why can't I keep the manual version? It makes no sense. That should be used for pages in which people are not willing to devote their time into having reliable sources and whatnot. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, who are you to tell me what I will and will not like tomorrow or the day after that? Then, I didn't say I owned any article. I never even said they were my articles. I just said I make many contributions to the article and am willing to make sure that the article always has reliable sources. And being right is totally subjective. I am right in my own opinion and you're right in yours. Also, if an user's edits are their own problem, if an article is vandalized, misspelled, not cited, or more I should just wait for that same user to take it out. Chances are that they are never going to take it out. There would be no point in even having a reverting tool. There would be no point in Wikipedia. This argument is really reaching nowhere so I just think that we should put a stop to it. I really don't like arguing. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only Girl (In the World)[edit]

I have to say that I am really uncomfortable with the placement of those citations and the use of {{singlechart}} in that article. {{singlechart}} computes the location of the citation based on the assumption that you are only going to use it after the single has charted. By placing the chart information into the article days early, a situation is created where singlechart is building incorrect references and the correct references are going into funny places. Wouldn't it be best to just delete the chart information until after the chart is released?—Kww(talk) 04:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have citations in with the charting section because Billboard isnt updating Rihanna's charting page. It should have been updated a week ago with only girl entering Canada and US at 65 and 74(something like that) and they were never added. What do you suggest i do? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale[edit]

A edit in April said "But I can't see a reason to remove future roles if they are 100% confirmed (one of them is already being shoot)". That 'one' is the Phineas and Ferb movie. So either she stays or her page will have edit wars againist others. Isabella and Lego Liker _{Whatcha doin'?} 23:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick help?[edit]

Hi Kevin, I need to get an IP range blocked but this is not my forté at all, I'm nervous to attempt since I don't really understand how to do it - can you assist? Per the comments left for me at checkuser: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/91.8.213.91, the range "doesn't look too active", although when I use the tool shown, it returns over 8000 potential users being blocked... that seems high to me, but I really have nothing to compare it to, maybe that's not considered a lot? Help? - eo (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. - eo (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization[edit]

Sorry. This time it actually was an accident. Disney09 (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCart[edit]

Whay have you deleted OpenCart?

OpenCart is very popular and has book written about it.

First you won;t allow me to write about it because I'm the devloper of it so I ask some people in the foruym they you block it because its a repost.

OpenCart has wiki entries in all the other languages accept english. I don;t think your even reviewing the material we are posting and just deleting stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyon (talk • contribs) 10:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chart query[edit]

You are pretty involved with the sourcing for record charts, right? An IP has been adding Year-end chart data to a few of the U2 singles, but I'm not sure if the source they are using (longboredsurfer.com) is reliable. Do you know? My inclination is that it isn't, but I'd like confirmation before wiping it off. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've reverted the additions. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Show Cats: The Standard of Perfection[edit]

I was able to find what the nominator could not. Starting with a full-length review of this film in The New York Times, it was an easy job after that. If you might revisit the article, you will see that what was sent to AFD as mediocre stub,this has now become THIS... a decently encyclopedic and well-sourced Start-Class article that is now worthy of inclusion within these pages. It might not have before... but it now passes WP:NF. And yes... I even surprised myself with this one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why be everyone a–talkin' all strangely today?
☠ Because we ☠ ☠ ARRRRRR! ☠
	With a yo-ho-ho, I be wishin' yer a right rollickin' ☠ Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day ☠ To be a joinin' the fun and frolicks, yer can be addin' {{User:Chzz/pirate}} to the top o' yer talkpage / userpage for today, fer a fine fancy decoration. Emptied after midnight it'll be, so don't be dallyin' now! Hoist yer mainsail t'wards the I-R-Sea, either a'helpin' new sailors or on me own poopdesk, and let's parrty like it's 1699! Cap'nChzz ► 00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy ITLAPD Capn' slappy and Ol Chumbucket Problems playing this file? See media help.	How To Be Speakin' Pirate-Like Official website *Auto-translate to pirate speak
Disclaimer: It's very rare for me to send messages like this; it might seem frivolous or hypocritical, as I often complain about myspacing of the project. However, as a pastafarian, this is my equivalent of a Christmas greeting. I seriously believe we need to have fun sometimes. If you object, I apologize; let me know, and I won't bother you again.

Endless sockpuppeting[edit]

WP:NSONGS[edit]

Rangeblock advice[edit]

Semi-protected edit request[edit]

Re: Familiar looking?[edit]

LOL...I am NOT the "Disney Anon" :))[edit]

More Sndpsingh23 sockpuppets[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Re. Labor Pains[edit]

Thread on AN/I[edit]

Re:/* User:McYel responds to User:Alison, User:Crazycomputers, and admins */[edit]

Venzuelan Singles Chart[edit]

help needed[edit]

RE:Round & Round[edit]

A little alarm bell went off[edit]

SPI[edit]

Re: Brazil and WP:BADCHARTS[edit]

Gladys Tuffjerk[edit]

Top 10 singles articles and how to "develop them into high quality articles"[edit]

Teenage Dream[edit]

Reply[edit]

Merry Christmas[edit]

My Response[edit]

My Second Response[edit]

Kelly Rowland Discography[edit]

Mariah Carey Discussion[edit]

Requesting admin assistance[edit]

Mariah Carey[edit]

WP:RS/N[edit]

Your input is requested[edit]

Admin[edit]

Mk5384[edit]

User:Sift&Winnow????[edit]

PeterGriffin's name calling[edit]

first off[edit]

He's/she's back[edit]

Talk:Charles Harrelson[edit]

Reply: Teenage Dream[edit]

Make Up Bag[edit]

List of best-selling music artists[edit]

My life hell[edit]

A Year Without Rain[edit]

Hello[edit]

Mariah Carey again[edit]

Petergriffin9901[edit]

Song[edit]

Have you seen[edit]

Will you remove these dead files from my user page?[edit]

Bulbasaur[edit]

Economics of Religion[edit]

Yo[edit]

She Wolf (song)[edit]

Must be a sockpuppet of someone[edit]

Kombo[edit]

67.80.190.24[edit]

My reverts[edit]

Re:Romanian Top 100[edit]

ANI notice[edit]

"German Singles Chart" sourced with redirected MTV site[edit]

No doubt he's a sock[edit]

Archived rt100[edit]

Thought I'd draw your attention to this...[edit]

Significant changes to accessibility guidelines will have a major impact.[edit]

re:references and singlechart[edit]

Closing AfDs[edit]

Audio Files[edit]

still blocked[edit]

Madonna albums discography[edit]

Freakshownerd's talk page[edit]

RS/N[edit]

More SPI notes[edit]

Selena Gomez & the Scene article need semi-protection![edit]

Mariah Carey (album) GA nomination[edit]

Jennifer Lopez (semi-protection)[edit]

Mariah Carey albums discography[edit]

re:Lady Gaga[edit]

Ideas?[edit]

LAUGH90 sock[edit]

Personal invitation to discussion: Cert columns headings & links[edit]

Mariah Carey[edit]

please read ASAP/need information[edit]