Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:13, 4 March 2009

Archive at User talk:Kww/04022009.

mediatraffic

ok. can u tell me how to delite this article Best selling albums in 2009 i can't find how to do it. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokuna (talk • contribs) 08:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply

i'm very tierd.... so u can delete my article Best selling albums in 2009sory if i make u a trouble. i did'nt wanted like this. i thought that i make a good job, but i was wrong. sory and goodby. i will never make nothing on wikipedia.(on my favorite site)

Simple Plan chart query

Anyway you can write what you want and concider whatever you regard important. But one can be said that I like[REDACTED] very much as I think that this is global net of informaitonal source where can be found any kind of data that can cover throught the world. There for I considered and still consider that this article and the web site were this article comes is reasonable to be in[REDACTED] as[REDACTED] covers all kind of information and there is no limit on information variaty.Meanwhile you are well aware that the article data is slightly/almost different from the real data that you have included in the same Album article. Thanks for your fixed idea for my article as it gives me more challenge to protect this article from deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokuna (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple Plan chart query

Do you think you could take a look at this and see if it is an appropriate chart, or just chartspam, and act accordingly? I didn't bother to correct the spelling mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Now User:Hometown Kid is getting into it with Simple Plan, claiming that there is a new single on the basis of . Do you think you could look into it?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

I've started a thread on WT:FICT. As much as I have wanted to see this passed, if it's suddenly going to be substantially changed, then Ikip's argument that the RfC is invalidated by changed does mean something. (Sigh). Here we go again... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Despues de Todo

I moved the tag back up again. The anonymous IP keeps putting it down south. What can one do? Schmidt, 03:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with the diceyness on the surface. I went looking around using some journalistic sources , and came up pleasantly surprised. Rather than comment with "keep" and let someone else close it, I determined that it was worthy keeping. You're correct, I could have said "no consensus" (which I just did with another). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of AfD's...I look at the Argentina-Singapore group AfD. Some of those should stay, others should be deleted. Obviously, I can't do a non-admin closure to take care of that ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Harassment

Filing an inflammatory and unjustified sock puppet report goes "way over the line" and may constitute harassment. A simple IP lookup (which takes less than one minute to perform) would have confirmed for you that I and the other user in question were not the same people. Instead, you chose to file a report (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildernessflyfisher.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)), wasting the valuable time of other members of the community. Since such a small amount of effort on your part would have clarified the issue, it is my belief that the sock puppet report in question was filed in order "to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." This clearly falls within the definition of harassment as defined by Misplaced Pages.

Furthermore, maintaining a stranglehold on the content of a certain Misplaced Pages page in which you have a vested interest is viewed as questionable behavior at best. Repeatedly reverting edits, rather than using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors is also a clear example of "Edit War" Tactics. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Examples of foul play

Exerting near complete control over the content of a certain wiki topics in which you have a biased, vested interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NVC

You refuse to accept the consensus of many users contributing to articles for which would create a balanced view of a topic, of which you are no authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Consensus

Your tactics include reverting and undoing any change that is made, often in 2 minutes or less, repeatedly. As of today, your contributions to the topic "temple garments" includes 36 reverts/undos yet only 2 constructive contributions. Impressive history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:EDITWAR

Accusing anyone who makes an edit of religious censorship. I've seen some good arguments on that page, but you just keep on undoing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:FAITH

You have a history of trying to keep people from editing "your" pages by posting warnings and threats on their talk pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:HARASS
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:HUSH

The above behavior is unfortunate and should be noted for future reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.64.63 (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"3RR and Harrassment Warning"

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Temple garment. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

"You are very close to being blocked, so it would be best for you if you simply calmed down a bit..." -kww
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.64.63 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kww, I hope you don't mind if I step in to try to settle things down. I've invited our anonymous friend and Wildernessflyfisher to stop editing the article for a few days while they come to my talk page and discuss it. If they acquiesce, would you be willing to put on hold any further warnings or sanctions you might otherwise pursue against them? Giving them a bit of space might help them to discuss with less emotion and more reasoning, is what I'm thinking. Sound okay? alanyst 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

diplomacy...

...is one of the things I admire in you. I wish I had your patience--and I wish I was on Bonaire right now! Groeten, Drmies (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My take on the recent dispute

You might be interested to peruse my take on the recent dispute at Temple garment. I welcome your feedback on the talk page. alanyst 07:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism

your post Multiple final warnings is not true there have not been multiple final warnings and actually last I looked neither had there been any edits after the one and only final warning. Jeepday (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC):I see two final warnings, though one did not have the cute little red stop sign. and here. Does one of them not count for some reason? If they both count, a retraction seems to be in order.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, the fault is mine I was looking for the formatted final warning. See the response at my talk also. They have stopped vandalizing, so you have accomplished the goal even with my failure to read correctly. Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The second final warning crossed. He added things to Aaliyah, I reverted, he was adding stuff to Cassie while I was warning, and then I took care of the Cassie problem, thinking it had happened after my warning. In fact, it occurred seconds before. What's with the youtube link, BTW, Wehwalt?—Kww(talk) 00:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I had a problem with the copy/paste. I'll change that. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, glad to see it was a misunderstanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, one final follow up, the user posted this, it has a references. So it would appear to be a good faith edit. You may (or may not) still need to work on WP:RS with them, good luck. Jeepday (talk)

RE: your post on my talk page - You will probably need to take it to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as there seems to be ongoing issues and the distinction of vandalism is not clear. Jeepday (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

BLPs

Hi, would you mind reading Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive51#Mug_shots and leaving feedback on my page about suggestions on how to advocate for policy change? Also, I'd like more input on Talk:Chris_Brown_(entertainer)#Suggesting_immediate_removal_of_arrest_from_the_article_for_BLP_concerns, Talk:Rihanna#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy, and Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#conerns_over_recent_domestic_violence_reports_between__Chris_Brown_and_Rihanna if you are interested. Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

• hi! soo thanks for your supportment against the katy perry singles chart's peak position vandalism - it's great to feel that i'm not alone in this war! :)) i hope one time they will gonna give up ;) --Triancula (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• i hope he'll accept his defeat. really wow! thanks for your interest ;) --Triancula (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

One less vs. one fewer

I'm not going to disagree for the point of disagreeing, but you might find interesting. - Jarry1250 22:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course - I have no idea why I edited just to change that! Must have been a nerve hit whilst under the influence of sleep deprivation ;) Sorry for bothering you. - Jarry1250 07:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Dance-pop

Can you please speak to an administrator about User:Dance-pop and his or her reopening the closed article for "Beautiful, Dirty, Rich". The user continues to reopen it after a discussion months ago. He or she threatens to have me blocked. Charmed36 (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. But you have not looked at both sides of the story. Did you contact me about the contnet abuse in a non-threntnig.No you did not way. I have talked to Charmed36. He has also being making more then 3 reverts in less then 24 hrs. So I am sorry if you feel that I am in the wrong. The disscussion is not over, I have reopened it. You are now threntning me, so I will wrn you now. My edits are not threnting, maybe in your opinion. I have tryed to settle it, but chrmed will not listen. I hope you can help. I will reopen the disscussion for deletion on the talk page of the article. Thanks.Dance-pop (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wobbly bob + artist bio

Thank you for adding the bio to the deletion discussion. I had no idea you could do that. §FreeRangeFrog 22:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design addition

I left a note on User talk:R. fiend that I thought the placement of the new material is reasonable in close proximity to the subsection on "Religion and leading proponents". Perhaps someone else will propose merging the two subsections, though offhand I'm comfortable with it in its present placement. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

FfD to delete Time cover image

Hi. As you were involved in some of the recent discussion and debate about the images in the article on Intelligent design, I thought you might like to know a separate proceeding was brought to remove the Time image by outright deletion from the wiki . It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg . If you are at all interested in the issue, it would be reasonable to post a "keep" or a "delete" at that page. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Neuro Emotional Technique

I have taken your suggestions into consideration, and have come up with a more truncated version. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and let me know if the article is better served this way. I did however read through it many times, and saw numerous sections where I specifically mentioned "assumptions" and "hypothetical". In this latest version, I have tried underlining the word "Assumption" to make it more obvious. Is there a place where I can put this article up for reading before publishing? I would prefer not to have to publish it and then immediately have it taken down. Looking forward to your input. KBenSD (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Haha. I was just using it. Saw it a while ago and you've done a really brilliant job! Thanks! k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 15:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Under Construction

Thanks! I had no idea you were "watching" what I was doing in my sandbox. I was going to pull a few of these quotes to reference something like "a widely respected/popular law professor" or some such thing.

This is going to be a great page. You'll see. Michael has a "chair" at his law school. He was on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. He's the #2 RICO lawyer in the country. He has written voluminously, notably one of the primary Evidence textbooks used in law schools today. He represented the IOC in the SLC Olympic Committee Scandal. A couple of years go he was diagnosed with ALS and he has spearheaded a movement to get major league baseball involved in a cure, leading to a major upcoming event on July 4th at ballparks around the country. I was surprised he didn't have a page up already.

I'm brand new to this. When you write me a "new message", I see I can get to it under "my talk". But is there a direct/private way I can respond?

Thanks, Rose P.S. Evolutionary biology rocks. It was called Sociobiology in my day, I believe. Huge fan. Changed my thinking.Samantha1961 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

clueless

I saw no "e-mail this user" button. And my failure to communicate with your predecessor was entirely my fault. I'm a total novice just trying to do this one thing...Samantha1961 (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

please review my page

Could you please review the page I've been working on and let me know what you think so far? Also, is it still unacceptable to use links like that blog as references for "well-regarded by students"? Thanks! Samantha1961 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"witness protection"

Already done! It's mentioned in one of the articles. Thanks for reading.Samantha1961 (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"citation needed"

The citation is #5 of the ones I have listed. If you're interested in looking, the article opens with the rumor and discusses it for several entertaining paragraphs. How do I add the citation?

Also, is this the right time? Or should I be looking at this later?

I not only have no idea how to add the citations into the main text, I have no idea when they are required. Why is it, for example, tha the rumor needs a citation but that his birthdate doesn't?Samantha1961 (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

References... and Reviewing an Entry

I did know that from personal knowledge. But I knew enough not to put it in there until I saw it in the independent source. He was my law professor (and boss) over 25 years ago. Now he is my friend. It's funny that the rumor is STILL out there. I told him I would write this Misplaced Pages entry about/for him, but I do feel it is warranted.

On other fronts, another friend of mine already has an entry--a somewhat quesionable one. I wonder if you could review this? It is Jay Bybee, author (or at least signatory) of the infamous "Bybee memo". Jay is also someone I have known for nearly 30 years. He is sharp as a whip and extremely principled. Our politics differ, and I proudly oppose torture. (no-brainer there) Misplaced Pages is supposed to be unbiased. This entry is extremely stinging and one-sided. For example, the last reference given in the list at the bottom specifically states that the interviewee feels that Jay and the others involved acted in good faith, just like the interviewee (who takes the opposite stance) feels he himself did. No mention of this is made in the Misplaced Pages article, however, which is extremely one-sided.

Jay is being tried in the court of public opinion and obviously Misplaced Pages is just one corner of it, but I'd sure like to see this corner cleaned up. I'm prepared to go through his article cite by grueling cite if need be, but it seemed best to ask you to review it before I went in there after it. Just let me know how to proceed. Thank you!!

editor??

What exactly does that mean? Do you work for Misplaced Pages? Or are you a private individual like me? Much as I appreciate the help, if you are a private individual, why are you making changes in my sandbox? And if you are a Misplaced Pages person, please advise me on my Bybee question. Also, I hate you already because living on an island is my lifelong dream and here I am stuck at Disney World...

editor??

What exactly does that mean? Do you work for Misplaced Pages? Or are you a private individual like me? Much as I appreciate the help, if you are a private individual, why are you making changes in my sandbox? And if you are a Misplaced Pages person, please advise me on my Bybee question. Also, I hate you already because living on an island is my lifelong dream and here I am stuck at Disney World...

Beautiful, Dirty, Rich

Hey Kevin, the above articles deletion request has been closed citing no consensus. Can you tell me what to do with the article now? There are very few authenticable sources in it to warrant a separate page and nothing in the article complies WP:SONG. Shall we redirect it? --Legolas!! 05:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A concern has been raised in the article's talk page to merge it with the album, as not enough material to warranty a separate page. Please share your thoughts on this. --Legolas!! 09:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this username inappropriate?

I'm welcoming users right now, and I came across a username that's inappropriate (I welcomed him/her, but...) What do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hot_sperm_in_your_eyes&action=history - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

misc

How was the trip to the eye doctor?

I'm making a lot of progress on my JB edits--and learning a great deal.

I've dropped the MG piece while working on the Bybee piece. I'm learning so much on the JB piece that I figure I'll wait to write the MG piece so I can apply the newfound knowledge.Samantha1961 (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

misc 2

I'm starting to get used to this, but it still takes me forever to even remember how to write back. It took me 5 minutes just to find your msg! I was only looking because Misplaced Pages told me I had a msg. Notice I got my e-mail thing up.

I read over COI. Your concerns are noted. However, I do believe I can do justice to these topics. My MG piece is totally warranted, so that's fairly easy. And the JB piece was so slanted in the other direction--not just misuse of quotations but actually misstating what was in the original--that it requires balance and objectivity. I'm not THAT close to either of these men and I feel confident I can write in a neutral/balanced style. The JB piece demands that balance be added, anyway. And it'll be easy on the MG piece. Also, both are worthwhile subjects that should be "out there" on Misplaced Pages whether I get involved or not. I veritably rock at writing, so I think I can do this right.

BTW, an interesting point on the JB piece. He is totally absolutely conservative. I'm exactly the opposite. That ought to put some balance in the article right there. I don't want to see him slammed. But I probably disagree with the memo. I'm not sure. 50 pages of legalese to slog through... There's a reason I'm no longer a practicing attorney... Boring... That'll be my very last step. But knowing JB the way I do, I believe he acted in good faith when he wrote it. In fact, one of the references indicates that the very man who rescinded the memo also believes its authors were acting in good faith.

Sorry about the eye thing. It's one of my biggest fears. My young 'un has diabetes, so now I can fear for her as well... Sucks...Samantha1961 (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied.

Ali Lohan

My mistake. Fixed. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Give me a hint

If you don't like my version, give me a hint on what you think would work. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevance

I just had an epiphany. There is also a Misplaced Pages entry entitled "Bybee Memo". Wouldn't the entire discussion of the Bybee Memo within the Jay Bybee piece be in a better location if I moved it over to the Bybee Memo entry and just left in a blue reference to it in the Jay Bybee piece?? What do you think?Samantha1961 (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Ball Tour

Do you think the Afd nomination of the above article is valid? The reason given for nomination is so very strange. Can you please share your thoughts at the discussion page? --Legolas!! 11:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Best selling albums in 2009

I'm not seeing United World Chart mentioned in the sources and from a cursory glance neither does the source. Could you please clarify the nomination as to how you believe the UWC is involved in the article. - Mgm| 12:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Poker Face

if u go down page you can see..(then the cd single) but you can also see here:http://italiancharts.com/archive.asp put 05/02/2009 scuse me for the english..but i'm italian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.53.251.208 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

JB

I am now substantively done with the JB piece. If you'd like to tackle those references, feel free...Samantha1961 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Best selling albums in 2009

I red the discussion page but there I could not find reasonable argument against this article if we do not consider you and one (that might be your friend :). In previouse talks you mentioned that Brasil didn't/don't have an official chart but you can check it on the web site , hope you can find it helpful :).

• Above all I want to add that I have a real argument that this web site uses the following coutries (THE TOP-SELLING ALBUMS ACCORDING TO GLOBAL SALES DATA AND NATIONAL ALBUM-CHARTS OFFICIAL NATIONAL CHARTS FROM USA, JAPAN, UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY, AND FRANCE WITH REAL SALES DATA) data as a key information source and as for chart information of other coutries it is a kind of secondary information.

Best selling albums in 2009

Why you take only desicion whether this article should exist on this web site or not? As about this was said above, I consider that you do not have enough and proper arguments to abolish this article, you can check the sale rate of these albums just here in wikipedia. I consider that it is not kind gesture always to argue about this article existence on this web site. With honor Koka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokuna (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If the matter of affair is such and you urge to delete this article from this web site, I can say that you're welcome in only one case if this will be decided by the open discussion where all[REDACTED] members will express their opinion about this article. I agree that mediatraffic is not reliable in track data, but as for the Albums selling and editting information it is almost the same as RIAA, IFPI, BPI and other certified companies. Therefore your self argument is not enough for deleting this article because the Album sales information that is eddited by me can be simply checked by clicking on the article and see the difference between them.

Anyway you can write what you want and concider whatever you regard important. But one can be said that I like[REDACTED] very much as I think that this is global net of informaitonal source where can be found any kind of data that can cover throught the world. There for I considered and still consider that this article and the web site were this article comes is reasonable to be in[REDACTED] as[REDACTED] covers all kind of information and there is no limit on information variaty.Meanwhile you are well aware that the article data is slightly/almost different from the real data that you have included in the same Album article. Thanks for your fixed idea for my article as it gives me more challenge to protect this article from deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokuna (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Brexx is back ...

... as FELANGI (talk · contribs). His socks are often all caps. He's back on Lindsay Lohan. Ward3001 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-Good Charts

Thanks for the update. JayJ47 (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing AFD notices

I'm sorry, but i thought that it was not necessary, beacuse added the sources and this album was confirmed by the Ashley's official site, which more is needed? Juanacho(talk) 20:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• The first source (Ashley's official site) in the article confirmed Guilty Pleasure. Juanacho(talk) 1:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale article

Can you please help me. He/she is reverting again. I am honestly sick of this, doing everything all over again because some uncivilized little child doesn't like others contributing to his/her idol's article. This is unfair and abusive…. how no one is stopping this child from reverting. Why aren't there any administrators looking at the Tisdale article? In my opinion this user is abusing his/her advantages of editing on Misplaced Pages. Every edit is reverted by Juanacho, if Juanacho doesn’t agree with what the other users have done, he/she will just revert their edits immediately. This is abuse… But my opinion and edits don't matter, all of my effort means nothing this has been continuing for a very long time now. Why isn't there anyone stopping this user? And most of the images he/she has uploaded are non free media rationales and copyrighted. Why is no one bothered to stop this user? --Olivewildes (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability (Fiction)

There seems to be some progress being made towards redrafting the guideline. Most of the arguments for a permissive guideline seem to have been countered in the sense that they have been found not to be viable. My attempts to obtain a compromise earlier this year seem to be leading towards a slightly stricter applciation of WP:V for fiction that should discourage topics which are only the subject of in universe plot summary, trivia and cruft. A recent post at WT:FICT#The rules seems to make this clear. Can you provide some cool and clear support towards drafting a compromise that is compliant with existing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)